Deletion of Sandra Fluke (3rd nomination)

Comment: For some history, the article was the source of a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fluke|long-running AfD that ended in delete. Then Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 June 21|after deletion review recreation was allowed, although the deletion decision wasn't overturned (whatever doublespeak that means) and the page was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hoary|restored by Hoary, who had argued in the DRV for recreation.Her notability stems entirely from the Rush Limbaugh issue. Remove that piece of the puzzle and this wouldn't pass BLP1E. Testifying before congress doesn't make one notable, nor does writing a few pieces for CNN. Similarly the work she's doesn't appear to satisfy  itself. I think the earlier AfD was correct
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: subject appears to fall under . Although there are multiple mentions of the subject, the subject appears to be primarily notable regarding events that are the primary subject of the sub-article Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy and events surrounding that subject. Although the subject writes for the Huffington Post, she does not yet appear to warrant notability per . Now if the subject is found to be independently notable regarding events not associated with the sub-article ''Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy'', the article can be recreated; additionally if the sub-article that was previously mentioned meets the requirements set forth in  it can be spun out as a |sub-article of that sub-article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:AUTHOR||WP:TOOLONG||WP:SUBARTICLE)

Comment: The  argument seems weak to me.  I don't think anyone would seriously propose deleting Chesley Sullenberger, who would presumably have remained obscure but for US Airways Flight 1549|one event.  The reason I proposed a merge earlier is not because of any questions of notability, but simply because the two articles in question cover practically the same ground
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy per . She can have her own article if Barack Obama gives her a Cabinet position or something else notable happens in her life that is not related to the single and now virtually undiscussed tangle with Rush Limbaugh. However, if this article is redirected, the Limbaugh-Fluke article should be reworked to be a bit more neutral and provide more context rather than seem like Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy#Defense of Limbaugh|just a catalog of opposition to Limbaugh
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: on the basis of clear lack of independent notability. It'd be an exercise in futility to try and scare up instances of Ms Fluke's notability independently of the Rush Limbaugh episode. I tried - and it ''was'' futile. Please, let us set aside the politics of this and proceed according to Wiki rules on both |notability and |BLPs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy per .However, if this article is redirected, the Limbaugh-Fluke article should be reworked to be a bit more neutral and provide more context rather than seem like Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy#Defense of Limbaugh|just a catalog of opposition to Limbaugh
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: Fluke's ongoing involvement in recent events still doesn't merit an article of its own, even if it was unrelated to the Limbaugh scandal (which it isn't.) Please see  - as she in no way merits a mention in the article about the 2012 election, the best place to mention any of her subsequent actions are in the main controversy article. Not on a separate page, which will only serve to further confuse readers and attract POV edits. (As it indisputably has in the past.) Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTWHOSWHO)

Comment: Votes that claim that coverage has ceased are simply and obviously incorrect. Fluke's case was the subject of a panel at the American Bar Association's annual conference just the other day, http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/sandra_fluke_reflects_on_lawyers_civility_and_her_brush_with_rush_limbaugh/ as covered in the ABA Journal. The argument that it is Fluke's ''activities'' that need to persist, rather than ''coverage'', is extremely silly and completely in contradiction to . Next you'll be saying that George Harrison hasn't done anything recently
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERSISTENCE)