Deletion of Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination)

Comment: Matter already covered in controversy article. It seems quite a few editors in the US of A think any individual involved in a single controversy or who has met the Pope is notable enough for a BLP. This is a clear-cut case of . In the UK a few years ago, a couple refuse to allow a gay couple to share a bed at their guest house, on the basis of their "Christian values" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158 They were ordered to pay compensation and lost all appeals. This controversy does not have an article, let alone a BLP for the guest house owners. If this happened in South Africa or New Zealand or Greenland would an article have been created? This is also a clear case of . "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article" Also, take note of this "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Are editors here now arguing Davis is as notable as a political assassin
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:GEOBIAS||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per  no coverage other than that directly related to her actions on the same sex marriage, all we can do is create a |pseudo biography. ''Miller v. Davis'' is a potential merge/redirect target. Once she becomes a FOX talkshow host, then maybe
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:1E)

Comment: This woman has received significant, lasting news coverage since her arrest, and isn't just some random person but is an elected politician in Kentucky, so that adds to her notability. The same-sex marriage controversy is what majorly makes her notable enough for her own article. Per , "If media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: The subject of the article is at the center of a historic series of events directly related to the most significant civil rights legal case of the past 40-plus years. As noted in : "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Davis has taken her fight to SCOTUS; she's been jailed for contempt of court; she's the subject of satire and parody; and she has even managed to meet the Pope. Here are some additional facts to consider
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: This is not  . Coverage of the subject has moved past what would be expected if the coverage was only of one event. Without finding the exact citation, there has been coverage about the subject's change in political affiliation, her religious beliefs, and electoral history. This subject-matter  coverage is only tangentially related to the controversy and background of Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy and Miller v. Davis. That said, the article should be trimmed and portions of the material moved to the other pages to ensure appropriate weight to the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)