Deletion of Google memo

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

Comment: In other similar cases,  might have applied, but the limitation of the "withstand-the-test-of-time" principle is that, should e.g. a nuclear war start today, I'd expect an article on it started legitimately ''within seconds'', and definitely not after waiting for a while to see whether lasting notability is achieved or not. Here, a bomb (of sorts) has been dropped too, it's not difficult to see that it looks likely to have major global repercussions in society, and possibly also in science. If that (fairly reasonable) prediction of future notability fails to materialize, we'll fix it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: the vast number of sources covering this story (check Google News) demonstrate's the memo's significance. It should not be merged to the Google article because there has been significant discussion and analysis, both pro and con, about the memo, both from Google officially and from reliable sources, such as a professor whose work was cited in the memo. With time, I believe more of this discussion can be mentioned in the article in a way that conforms to our guidelines and policies, but a subsection in the Google article would be necessarily very short in order to not give  weight to one employee's criticisms of the company, and a memo the distribution of which is (at this point) a relatively minor event in the history of Google. The memo advances an argument that goes much, much bigger than just Google, and argues against strategies for increasing diversity that are mostly not unique to Google. Hence, if it were to be merged anywhere it would be more appropriate to merge it to Women in computing (but I am definitely not recommending that either!) than to Google
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: these AfDs on "controversial" news stories almost never end in deletion, and this one won't either.  There's no point in merging this article; a rename is called for but that should be discussed on Talk:Google memo, not here. It's  to merge this to Google because people will continue to add excessive amounts of detail
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Sounds like  and , coverage by RS does not make it notable. Also the chances of  looks fairly slim with coverage falling off quickly, even at this point
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:FART||WP:LASTING)

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

Comment: or Merge - should not stand alone as its own article per  and ; not even sure it will be noteworthy enough in the longer run to have more than a brief mention in a parent article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RECENT)

Comment: per  and . : "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Besides, it's too long and complicated to fit into the main article. The summary in Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#Criticism_and_controversy Criticism and controversy doesn't even do the issue justice as a summary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WEIGHT||WP:GNG)