Deletion of Names of Hillary Clinton

Comment: per . I am not seeing anything that would qualify this as a biography topic. I mean, everyone has alternate names, but I don't see any notable articles for those
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: per  frankly . The fact that the article creator, an administrator, thought that we should have an article to devoted to trivial modifications to a name and such nuggets as someone, sometime, calling her "Hitlery" -- get it?  -- is gobsmacking. Hasn't she also been called "that bitch" or "cunt" -- how did we miss that? It's forever going to be a POV magnet, and anything truly noteworthy about changes in her name should be briefly summarized in her bio article. And as noted above, there's nothing particularly unusual about women modifying their names after marriage -- or people in public life doing so, in general. Wikipedia is being used for  here, to try to create a false impression that there is a notable subject here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:COAT||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per . Is there a reason we have to have a page dedicated to what Hillary has been called? Leaving politics out of this, I wouldn't want this article for any BLP at all, regardless of their political affiliation, etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST but there are numerous  who are discussing this topic. It passes  on its own even if Hillary wasn't herself notable. More importantly, it lets us isolate some of this cruft out of the main articles. Also, some have raised tha rugment that this topic is sexist. That may be. but per  we do what the sources do, even if the sources are ultimately wrong
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:FLAT)

Comment: as per Gaijin42 and simply because it passes .  What this major figure is called is a topic and its notable as verified by the coverage in major sources over a period of years
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Per , "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented" then it's valid encyclopedic content. Derogatory names for Clinton may be well-documented, and may be relevant to the scope of this article, but noteworthy?  Noteworthiness seems kind of subjective, and to me it's more than adequate to note that she has been called a lot of names, without doing the name-callers the honor of repeating their masterpieces
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: per  and . I'm ''stunned'' this exists, quite frankly. Arguably, it's ''sexist'' to have an article ostensibly about whether or not a woman uses her maiden name as her middle name. Mentioning her Secret Service name is just a pathetic attempt to legitimize this nonsense. And this article will ''surely'' become a shit magnet for every unpleasant term Clinton is called in the future
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:FORK||WP:BLP)

Comment: into Hillary Clinton if feasible, or '''keep''' as interesting . The fact she used a different name throughout most of her political career, and was "forced" to give in and eventually use the husband's name, is of non-trivial importance, and there is very little doubt that one can find many sources discussing it. The whole deal ''may'' be able to be summarized into something shorter and kept within the scope of the person's biographical article; if not, it should be kept
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPINOUT)

Comment: That you ''can'' say a lot about a particular detail of someone's life doesn't necessarily mean that ''the detail'' is notable -- it means that the person is ''very notable''. There are any number of details about her life -- as with other celebrities' lives -- that one ''could'' write about, but, again, that there are sources about an aspect of someone's life doesn't necessarily mean it should have a stand-alone article. That the article is very long is not a strong argument to me in this case, as all that means is a very long section about her names is simply . &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: The topic is evidently notable and we have other similar articles where there's a complex naming history, e.g. Names of Ho Chi Minh City.  While the topic is obviously split from the main article, this is not grounds for deletion as forks and splits are undone by merger not deletion, per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:REDUNDANTFORK)