Deletion of Sandra Fluke

Comment: per  - "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: This falls under  It can be considered  defamation and libelous along with Limbaugh-Fluke flap which should be up for deletion with this. They both fall under what Wikipedia is not and could be breaking laws so it must be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSOAPBOX)

Comment: As others have stated, Sandra Fluke was known before Limbaugh made his comments. There were several (at least national) headlines about the 'single female witness that was not allowed to testify about birth control'. Although her name was not given much at the time, that was Sandra Fluke the papers were referring to. For many people, particularly women and those involved in women's rights in the U.S., her being denied as a witness was by itself a notable event. Look up 'birth control female witness' in Google -- most of those articles would count as the first event. That would make Limbaugh (and Fluke's reaction to Limbaugh, the President's call, etc) the second event, thus  should no longer be applicable. Special:Contributions/76.89.80.23|76.89.80.23
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The longer this goes on, the more this comes to mind.  If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources  Lets accept that it is , which I don't.   How much news coverage do you need to conclude that the individual is significant for one event?  — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The crux of the  guideline really is "if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."  I don't think anyone has any reason to believe she will be part of the news cycle again, outside of the umbrella of her testimony (or lack thereof) and its reverberations.  If she does pop up again, then a separate article is completely justified.  But until then, there is no need for there to be essentially two articles on her since  Rush Limbaugh - Sandra Fluke controversy covers the same information
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: at least for the time being. This is a story receiving a lot of media attention at the moment, with a very reasonable claim to be notable by our standards. It's too soon to delete the article; we should wait and see how it develops to see if there is a real case of lasting notability here. I recognise the  point, but at best that's an argument for renaming this to Sandra Fluke controversy rather than deleting it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per  and . It's BLP1E because if Rush hadn't opened his mouth there'd be no article, and COATRACK because it's much more about the incident than the person, and always will be unless this person gains further notability. There are several arguments here that amount to "We should keep this article until we see if further notability is established". No, if further notability is established we can create another article. Since when was an article subject "notable until proven non-notable"? Another unconvincing argument: "She has Google hits from before the Limbaugh controversy", with an attempt to prove this by a Google search for sandra fluke -limbaugh. If you look closely at the http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=sandra+fluke+-limbaugh&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 search results, you'll see that most references are from the past few days, with a few from around the time she was just about to testify. The rest are mostly blogs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Classic . Doesn't match at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: just had a look at -REASON and this falls under none of the categories
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)

Comment: Classic  in my book.  Best treated in a section on Rush's article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: This is precisely what  is intended to prevent, articles on otherwise ordinary people who land in the spotlight because of one situation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: but '''Merge''' with Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy) - Google's a weak way to gauge notability. You could get a lot of my past with my pseudonym, but it doesn't make me notable. She could end up becoming a James O'Keefe-like figure in the future, earning notability, but for now she's just one of tens if not hundreds of thousands who have managed 15 minutes of fame over the years. Also, I'd like to add my concern over  as she does have a history of activism. (and for full disclosure sake, I do agree with some, but not all, of her positions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX)

Comment: I mentioned earlier that this discussion should be suspended for a short time to see if anything more comes out of the issue.  Someone brought up this particular part of the  policy, "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate."  As the policy continues, significance is reflected in news coverage.  Given the continuing coverage and extended fallout, it would appear that this policy has been satisfied.  However, it may be better to simply merge the content here with that of Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, so I am not yet taking a stance.  That article also has three discussions going for it, including its merger with this article and an AfD, so now is not a good time to merge
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Maybe rename ''''Sandra Fluke incident''' or something. (1) This incident has drawn so much attention that people want more context, and it deserves more than a side paragraph in Rush Limbaugh, where she is depersonalized into the woman he called a "slut", "prostitute" and "round-heeled". There is nothing about Fluke herself in Rush Limbaugh. If we quote attacks against someone in Wikipedia, we should also show what she is really like as a person. (2) She's also notable for not being allowed to testify before Congress. So there's a good case that she is  and we should keep the entry even without renaming it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: per .   makes it very clear the guideline is meant for "low-profile" individuals who find themselves in the news through no intention of their own, ie "Peoria man accidentally mows off own foot."  An individual who willingly testifies (or wants to) in front of the entire Washington Press Corp and in front of of US Congressional hearings, not to mention willingly appear on numerous national television shows is in no manner a "low profile" and private individual
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: This appears to be clearly within the spirit, if not the letter, of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Arguments citing  as a reason for deletion are arguing that Fluke is famous for a single event, but I think it's clear that she's spent about two weeks in the news cycle, which, in itself, is not a non-event. I would argue that as she is important for having been refused to join Issa's panel (with the Democratic walk-outs), for having spoken at a Democratic panel and then being referred to as a slut, followed by the significant mass media coverage of her wherein she has become a face to the contraceptive mandate story, makes her notable. The examples on  page refer to people like the man who filmed Rodney King's beating as being not stand-alone worthy; I argue that Fluke is significantly more of an important figure than the examples listed on that page as guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: merge, and redirect to Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke Controversy.  How is she "an important and newsworthy person" apart from her testimony before congress (and its consequences)?  If this is the case, I am amazed she didn't *already* have a page *before* all of this.  But she didn't. And she shouldn't now.  No-brainer application of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Wikipedia is not the newspaper, and we don't need to pretend we're Wikinews.  There's no evidence in this article that she passes WP:SCHOLAR; if you want to write an article about a scholar who just happens to be the same person, you'll have to do a complete rewrite, so we'd need to |blow it up and start all over
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Satisfies  and GNG through significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Nothing here contrary to .  Her attempt to testify, and the denial by Rep. Issa was one event. Her subsequent testimony before some Democrats was a second event. The attacks on her by Limbaugh was the third event. She defended herself in interviews: event four. President Obama called her to chat: Event five. Five is not equal to one. (There may be more earlier events which got notice in the preceding 30 years of her life, and events after the Limbaugh attacks). A rename to the incidents would be acceptable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BLP1E)

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

Comment: to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. I agree she's a classic 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per , also notability. Neither Fluke's activism nor her testimony warrant an article. Limbaugh's commentary is the cause célèbre. It would best best to place this content in a subsection of the Limbaugh article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. I agree that this is a classic , but controversy is notable and should have an article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

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

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

Comment: The basis for deletion, , is flawed, and at odds with .  says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." How are we supposed to predict if she is likely to remain a low profile individual? Until the guideline gets its own house in order, keep the article and wait a year or two to see how this shakes out. Or go with , a better written guideline, and follow the advice that "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." Somebody go write an article about the ''event'', and then see how things look. Merging into Rush Limbaugh is a terrible idea; there are many more topics intersecting in this event than just him
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:1E)

Comment: This type of Bio is why we have 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: merge and redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, as suggested by 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Notability is a guideline, but  is a 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:POLICY)

Comment: as a textbook case of . The event in question is her non-testimony before  the congressional committee. Everything else is just media flap and fall out from that; this coverage looks broad enough to warrant mention at some article, but we hold |biographies of living persons to a higher standard. I think a more instructive search than those described above is to use the date delimiting option. This returns a number of results, but they all relate to: (1) Fluke's activities as a law student (useful if we were reviewing a grant application, but they do not establish notability); or (2) older articles with newer material appended (a flaw in the limiter algorithm). In my uninformed layperson's opinion, I think that there is a good chance that she intends to become a public figure at some later point, but for now we do not have the sourcing necessary to construct an article with any depth about the person that is not just a coatrack for an article about the event (with apologies to the people who worked on the article, as it is pretty decently written and covers all the major points I could find
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP)

Comment: to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy per JayJasper. There is a clear violation of , which clearly states that if an individual is known for a single event and likely to remain low-profile afterwards then the information should be contained in the page regarding the event
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)