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