Deletion of Resignation of Shirley Sherrod

Comment: This event has been reported on by multiple highly reliable sources. Easily passes the |General notability guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . The nomination's logic make no sense, at least now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: for now and review later. We are not in a rush to declare it . Also, start to think about where this content would be merged into. I don't see how a factual account in Wikipedia of the resignation is ''injurious'' in the  sense
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP)

Comment: and consider a  close of this AfD. Shirley Sherrod would be a BLP1E, but this appears to be a notable event in the course of the Obama Presidency, and certainly is for Andrew Breitbart and Tom Vilsack. At the very least, wait a few days or weeks before dismissing it as a flash in the pan
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: WP:BLP1E  says "write an article about the event, not the person", so it really doesn't apply here.  does not apply either though: To quote said policy: "... including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate ...". We have here a case where developments are noteworthy and lead to much coverage with a good chance that there will be a lasting notability. NOTNEWS seeks to remove articles and content that are clearly better suited for Wikinews, i.e. where it's obvious that the notability will vanish after a few days/weeks after news reports about it stopped. In this case, we cannot say for certain whether this will happen and the amount of coverage and discussion this subject created makes it a real possibility that lasting notability exists. If it turns out that this was incorrect, we can revisit this question in a few months. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per , a redirect for Shirley Sherrod to some other page, perhaps United States Department of Agriculture, is probably all that's needed here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: While I concede that the article will probably be kept, I also agree that it probably violates  in a few ways. It really does need some attention to make sure it's as |Neutral as possible
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NPOV)

Comment: I suggest waiting until early August before making a decision, to see what happens and where the controversy goes. For example, there are now reports (http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/usda-reconsiders-employee-ouster-over-race-remarks/print/ example) that the USDA may reemploy Ms Sherrod. Once things settle down, we can work out whether we should have a BLP about Ms Sherrod (very unlikely, IMO), rename this article to (say) "the Sherrod controversy" or merge it (preferably shortened) into some other article. (As an interim measure, we have a United States Department of Agriculture#Shirley Sherrod|section about Ms S in the USDA article.)As things stand, the reasoning behind the BLP1E rule and  are both good arguments for deleting the article. We should only keep it (possibly under a different name) if something changes. But I think the end of this AfD will be too soon to decide on that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: and do NOT redirect to United States Department of Agriculture.   We can't give adequate coverage of the event over there without violating .   The USDA article should just have a brief mention of this event with a link to this article which could provide fuller coverage.   This is not a BLP, this is about an event, like the DOJ attourney firing scandal.   doesn't mean we bury our heads in the sand and ignore everything less than 10 years old.   The amount of coverage this has gotten guarantees it more notability than most of the things on Wikipedia.  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Rather than the "temporary keep" recommendtations above, I would suggest that the article, as it stands, violates the spirit of  and , and even though the information is sourced, its sources may not be the most neutral, and it is controversial and may well violate BLP guidelines.  With so much that is troubling about the article, why not rticle Incubator|incubate it until the story plays out, and then it can be introduced later if the event merits.  There is no rush to introduce information to Wikipedia, but there should be a rush to remove information that is injurious to living people
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:A)