Deletion of Aliza Shvarts

Comment: A clear failure on  grounds ... and quite aside from anything else, speculating on the enduring notability of a news story '''one day old''' is crystal-ballery at its most speculative
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: To say that this article violates  is most likely true. To say that  overrides  is patently true. The topic of the article is currently receiving attention from numerous news sources, and has been the subject of lesser such attention repeatedly. The article meets the , as well as ,, and , as well as not '''violating''' any policies contained within  (which both diminish the image of Wikipedia and open it to legal pursuit) While including it serves the encyclopedia no harm, excluding it certainly may. It's true, the argument is straight from the inclusionist playbook -- . But looking above, the comments for delete are also generally .  comes to mind, and I think the combination of that and all the previous random policy documents should illustrate that it's not sensical to delete a three day old verifiably sourced article on the basis of non-notability. Fuck, did I make any sense at all? 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:IAR||WP:BLP1E||WP:5P||WP:V||WP:NOTE||WP:RS||WP:BLP||WP:NOHARM||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:WOTTA)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per  and .  Article is about a notable event performed by Ms. Schvarts, not about Ms. Schvarts herself, although her name is the most appropriate title to use for the article.  Whether this deed was a "hoax" -- and nothing but gossipy opinion has so far suggested that it was -- is irrelevant, as it has stirred up national attention either way
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I think the "event" is more notable than the person. She should not have a bio page as per . I think the "event" every right but this article as it stands is unnecessary
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per . I believe merging this or redirecting this article would be the best option. She however does not merit her own biographical page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per . "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." The policy is pretty clear
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per . We all get our 15 minutes, but that doesn't entitle us to Wikipedia articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: What this entry justifies is entirely |irrelevant. You cite notability standards, but our general notability guideline states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Maybe I am missing something, but this subject (including the hoax the later-revealed nature of the art project) clearly meets this general formulation. There are other formulations of notability which might support this articles deletion, but no-one here has cited them
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)

Comment: her art has a lot of coverage, making her notable. Saying this should be deleted is like claiming that a musician whose first single a number one across the world should be deleted as per . Blatant misrepresentation of Wikipedia policies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)