Deletion of Michael Dutton Douglas (2nd nomination)

Comment: When the content is too large, which in this case it is, the  policy allows for a break-out article. It's stated quite unequivocally.  Not sure how it could be missed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: with Laura Bush.  I'm really not sure how  supports this being kept, because he isn't notable outside the fact that he was killed by someone who later became the first lady in the US.  However, the fact that she accidentally caused someone's death is notable, especially in terms of its effect on the public's opinion of her.  I don't see how it's undue weight; Laura Bush just bears expansion
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: The subject of the article is not notable, and Laura Bush was not notable at the time this occurred (differentiating from the Mary Jo Kopechne article).  Nor does the inclusion of the articles relevant information (not his biographical information), cause the Laura Bush article to be "so large that this would make the article unwieldy."  Therefore,  does not apply.  As an aside, this AfD is on the top page of reddit.com, titled "Bush Apologists trying to delete wikipedia page of the dead boyfriend Laura Bush killed."  Clearly, this provides a source of canvasing.  '''Admins''', please carefully check the contribs of the voters as this has provided a source of canvasing.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an obituary. Also, consensus does not outweigh policy, Zylox.  Consensus determines whether something meets policy.  Voting for sake of disagreement (rather than whether something meets policy or not) is not valid
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: Per , it should remain as it's own article and be mentioned a la Wikipedia:Summary style in the Laura Bush article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: This article has about 256 words of text. The Laura Bush article has only 87 words about the accident in a 3364 word article. Putting in all the content of this one would not be that disproportionate. Her writings have indicated that the accident was very important in her subsequent life. But some of the personal information about him could be cut down a bit, since there is no basis for assuming it contributed to the accident, and he is notable only as the accident victim. He is definitely a person known only for one thing, because he did not get the chance to live out his life and do other things.  Firefly cites  inappropriately in calling for "Keep" when it actuslly says such a person should not have a stand-alone article, but his info should be merged into a more general article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)