Deletion of Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy

Comment: Article adds a lot of notable and current event information which, as past, similar articles have shown us, do end up pertaining to WP as a whole. This article also meets  by a very large margin and I would also like to ask for editors to show how it doesn't. This and other similarly politically motivated articles generate a lot of tension between editors. This should caution us to take the extra steps to NOT make this a Speedy Delete nor just ask to Delete on the sake of future lack of notability. If you go to Planned Parenthood's Talk Page and scan the currently available sources just there, I can easily count over 30 proper sources commenting on this issue with the vast majority of these posting follow up articles as the days go by. This should not be so easily dismissed. Special:Contributions/200.42.237.185|200.42.237.185
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: This article is an obvious 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: I notice the sections on the controversy in both Center for Medical Progress (political organization) and Planned Parenthood are both very long. For the PP article, at least, I would have thought it was approaching undue weight. So a question for those who !vote delete: is that what you anticipate the long-term situation to be? Essentially the same content duplicated in two articles? Doesn't it make sense to combine them in an article on the specific topic? Regardless of POV issues, is there room for a legitimate  situation here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF)

Comment: per BullRangifer and others. This event has been covered with enough depth and breadth that a neutral article can be (and seems to have been) written on it. It is very much a sub-topic of Planned Parenthood so  applies, not 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPINOUT||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: As the proper |spinoff sub-article is being developed, it becomes more apparent that it will be able to cover what could be seen as excessive coverage in both the PP and CMP articles. Both articles will benefit from the SPINOFF because we will be able to go into more detail there, and leave shorter summaries in each main article. This is how we're supposed to deal with these types of issues, so please help develop it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF)

Comment: Wikipedia keeps articles which meet . This event which this article describes passes  because the event was covered multiple times from various perspectives by reliable sources. Passing GNG passes N. This article is a fork of Planned Parenthood, which is a good thing. Content merges happen when good content can be put back into a parent article, but that should not happen in this case. This event has been covered to an extent that merging this to that article would be , and the response to good content which is  is to fork it into its own article. I would like to see someone who wants this deleted to comment on  - does this not meet Wikipedia's basic inclusion criteria? In what way does it not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:GNG||WP:UNDUE||WP:UNDUE||WP:N)

Comment: to main article. It seems to me that the debate here should not be about notability; the subject is clearly notable. The point is that when the topic of an article is a sub-topic of a broader topic which has its own article, as is the case here, do we require a subsidiary article? The guidelines that seem most relevant are  and . Provided the subsidiary article is neutrally written, CFORK does not prohibit it, but neither does it require it. On the other hand,  says that for articles with
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK||WP:TOOBIG)