Deletion of Humayun Khan (soldier)

Comment: both articles. GNG is easily met (and |not temporary) for both articles. Consolidation and merges could be discussed once this is less of a current event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: if we are to consider  and the extensive coverage afforded to the subject. Merging and giving passing mention on the convention article wouldn't do justice to the topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Both articles satisfy , and ongoing international media coverage of the subjects on mass scale solidifies the notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: both articles. Quite clearly notable per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Per . This family has received lots of media coverage on their own and deserve at least one article ''of'' their own. With that said, I would support a '''possible merge''' of Humayun Khan (soldier) into his parents' article, though
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Coverage in reliable sources is extensive and more than sufficient to meet . The nomination is defective since it cites |Biography of a living person known only for one event. This is not a living person but rather someone who was killed 12 years ago
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: the article on the parents.  The convention speech, Trumps angry reaction, the reactions of military veteran organizations and politicians of both sides to Trump's statements, all appear to be affecting the course of the 2016 presidential campaign.  The veteran himself falls under  and should be redirected to the parents' article. For perspective on this,see deletion debates on Joe the Plumber.  The article called Joe the Plumber was redirected to the article about the 2008 political campaign, but the article about the person Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher  was kept, even though it was then eventually renamed to Joe the Plumber. The deletion debate itself got press coverage in http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/wikipedia_vs_joe_the_plumber.php Columbia Journalism Review.  The Keep close by user:BJ said "He is currently in the national spotlight, many people are hearing about him for the first time and they come to Wikipedia to read (and write about him). While yes, his article violates the BLP policy, there is no deadline and exception can be made. Redirecting his article now would only cause needless drama, from both experienced editors who think he should have an article and new editors who can't understand why we don't have an article on such a "notable" subject. This close is not indicative of a consensus to keep, but an interim decision that I feel will result in the least drama. In a few days or weeks after the spotlight has moved to another political talking point, this should be revisited with a new AfD. I realize this means that Wikipedia will be a news site for a short period of time but I don't see any real harm in that." I agree with BJ. His Keep close was endorsed by deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Joe the Plumber.  Such decisions stand as defacto guidelines. Persons known for only one thing can become memes in US presidential campaigns, and remain important in political history, like Willie Horton whose prison release was important in the 1988 campaign with the "revolving door" meme
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)