Deletion of Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations

Comment: all of the "(whatever celebrity/politician) sexual misconduct allegations" articles to the main article on each person. The allegations are only notable because the person is notable, they don't have notability independent of the accused. If this is the most significant thing about Matt Lauer, then it can't be  in the main article. If it's not the most significant thing, then why a separate article? It's a "Catch 22
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: with Matt Lauer. I think the contents can be summarized and merged to his main article. Agreed with Muboshgu about  and  Fettlemap about context
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: SPEEDY KEEP''' - the article was just created and is in the process of being expanded. You don't delete an article that's barely 24 hours old crying merge. Looks to me like some editors need to read 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: any additional information as needed with Matt_Lauer#Sexual_misconduct_and_harassment_allegations and '''Redirect''' this article name, accordingly. ontent fork
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: there's a  argument to delete this, but apparently nobody believes that is policy.  Ignoring that, this should clearly be kept; there's enough coverage, references, and volume of material to justify a separate article.  Separately, from a purely procedural POV, a merge proposal should be at the article page, not AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to Matt Lauer per  as the contents of this article fit comfortably into the Lauer article. It may be that the situation will blow up like the Weinstein situation did but we aren't a  and can't know that for sure. If and when the topic becomes too big for the main article, spin it off then
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:CRYSTALBALL)

Comment: Unfortunately, I surmise some editors will say there is "precedent" to keep these content forks. They have fallen into the  trap but there is nothing beyond a |basic news cycle or any |significiant impact. And, in all seriousness guys, we don't need a new article for every new set of allegations because we ''aren't'' the news
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:LASTING)

Comment: Seems like a ontent forking|fork. Significant issue but merge with Matt Lauer. 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: with Matt Lauer, and keep a lid on excessive detail, bloated prose, and/or laundry lists of reactions that violate , and . Not everything written needs to be incorporated into a tertiary source encyclopedia, which Wikipedia claims to be. The plethora of articles in daily news sources (largely repetitive, derivative, and churnalism) do not necessarily mean the subject needs greater coverage in relation to Lauer's career as a whole. Writing in depth about the current event is simply ecentism. If this article remains separate, one could argue an article is due for any controversy involving Lauer.  Note that |verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. For comparison, see how Lauer's firing is proportionally covered in tertiary sources like https://www.biography.com/people/matt-lauer-9542543 Biography.com and https://www.britannica.com/biography/Matt-Lauer Encyclopaedia Britannica.  Per policy (), tertiary sources can be useful for evaluating due weight, as they help distill the most significant elements from the inherent myopia of day-to-day reporting
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:PROPORTION||WP:R||WP:ONUS||WP:TERTIARY)

Comment: Redirect'''. For one thing, the sizes of these articles are usually a good indicator that a new article is needed per , and that doesn't seem to be the case here. There's also a lot of overlap with the Matt Lauer biographical article and the allegations article, so it shouldn't be that hard to merge the most notable bits (most of the "Reaction" section seems to be just re-reviewing his past behavior, so most of that could be left out). Beyond that, this doesn't seem to have independent notability or even a short-term impact beyond "Matt Lauer was fired
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SUBARTICLE)