Deletion of Joe Biden assault allegation

Comment: Holy disappointing AfD. Yes, pretty much every aspect of every major presidential candidate will meet GNG, but we don't create separate articles for them.  We create articles for them when they come to dominate existing articles disproportionately, or when there's an incredible amount of coverage of a sustained period of time. We have neither one of those here. At this point, this probably deserves a mention in one or more of the existing articles, but per , , , and common sense when it comes to the ''most'' notable subjects and , no ''of course'' we shouldn't yet have a stand-alone article about this. Maybe in time. Also,  is an irrelevant AfD argument, as it's not only canceled out by  but superseded by BLP, etc. I don't envy the closer of this discussion... &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE||WP:BLP||WP:POVFORK||WP:WEIGHT||WP:RAPID||WP:DELAY)

Comment: Per MrX and . Left unchecked, this could easily become another Media coverage of Bernie Sanders
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: a notable event , covered by reliable sources, including the New York Times. Covering a well-publicized scandal related to a public figure based on reliable sources is so far from meeting #G10 that editors should be embarrassed to make such a claim
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS. This has only reached the level of unproven accusations. Biden and his organization has denied it. In other words, this is breaking news and speculative all the way around, and does not define him, his candidacy or his organization. This is not a significant event at this time and does not merit its own article per . It is merely sensationalism and Wikipedia is not a tabloid. I think more time is needed to see if this has durable impact, probably at least six months
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: in to Joe Biden for now, because of  and  issues.  The fewer articles we need to monitor and keep neutral about this issue, the better, at least until the election
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS||WP:BLP)

Comment: per . We can choose to merge later. I doubt we will though. This growing in prominence still. There is no rush to delete. ---&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID)

Comment: to an article that also covers his sexual misbehaviour allegations. Article zooms past  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: article has enough sources to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There is media coverage in some reliable sources such as WAPO and NYT, but that does not indicate the accusation is notable and deserves a stand-alone article. There is nothing to indicate this accusation will have a lasting meaningful impact on Joe, his campaign, or election. This allegation is far different from previous media coverage about Joe. And since the credibility of the accuser cannot be determined at this time, all the more reason for dispensing with this article. Wikipedia is not in the business of covering salacious allegations in  the manner of tabloid - which, fortunately, |Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is also not a gossip column (|wp:notgossip) or in the business of scandal mongering (wp:notscandal) to garner an audience
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTGOSSIP)

Comment: passes  and . Note Subject is a 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RAPID||WP:PUBLICFIGURE)

Comment: initially, I was going to say '''Merge''', because I thought the information would be fine in the Joe Biden article. However, realistically, that's just going to start a whole another fight about how much of this article should belongs in there. If "merged", I'm sure any more than a sentence or two would bring cries of  there. And those on the opposite end of the argument would try creating this article again. So, let's just cut to the chase and leave this article, because you all know we'll end up here, anyway
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation (a move that can be done boldly IMO). Front page coverage on NYT and WaPo, with every other major outlet rolling out stories as well, gives us enough material for a stand-alone page, and too much material for  coverage at Joe Biden. I agree with a paragraph or so at Joe Biden and a hatnote to this page, which can have more in-depth coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE)

Comment: There is no way that a credible sexual assault allegation against a major party presidential nominee doesn't meet the notability threshold. Additionally, there is too much content to be merged into the main Biden article without running into |undue weight problems within the main article itself, thus a sub-article is needed here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)