I just checked on this thread out of curiosity, and found it has been closed in about as sensible and articulate a way as I've seen. I think the closing comments are a model of consensus assessment, and well worth a look: The result was no consensus. The argument that it passes WP:N are hard to overcome. NOTNEWS is much trickier - how can one evaluate the long-term significance of a event that happened a week ago? I can't see the case that it's "routine news reporting" the way baseball games, horroscopes, or traffic reports are - one would need to make a compelling case, which isn't done here. There is, I think, a sufficient consensus that the phrase and subsequent meme should be mentioned either in an article, or in an article about the second debate (which appears to be merged into an article about all the debates at the moment). I can't tell which from this discussion, because both positions rely strongly on guessing what may come, partisan assertions. The argument that it's POV to merely have an article on the topic would need a compelling argument, not just a straightforward assertion, given that the sources come from across the political spectrum. If it was only far left sources repeating it, I would be inclined to give that position serious weight - not so much when it's the Globe & Mail. As with every article, merger remains an editorial possibility if a local consensus agrees to it (since people often ask this be stated explicitly). I wasn't able to detect a trend that way in the discussion - but it's tricky, because the sources kept appearing as the discussion continued, which may have changed the calculus is a way that a discussion like this, with much heat but little light, didn't illuminate. WilyD 12:37 am, Yesterday (UTC−7) -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Oct 23, 2012, at 7:10 AM, Jane Darnell wrote: Pete Forsyth peteforsyth(a)gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile