Deletion of Kim Davis (county clerk)

Comment: First, {{U|Bearcat}}, you neglected to notify me of this AfD nomination. 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. BLP1E exists so that we don't have articles about little Johnny who scored in three high school football games and was arrested one weekend for drunk driving. It exists so that we don't have trivial articles about private citizens private lives. Specific to the criteria of BLP1E, (#1) Has the subject been covered in reliable sources outside of the current series of events? Yes - http://www.themoreheadnews.com/news/local_news/county-clerk-s-race-more-contested-than-usual/article_1bbd5592-55fe-11e4-8f89-377bb4c40dd9.htmlhttp://www.themoreheadnews.com/news/local_news/davis-following-her-mother-as-county-clerk/article_29982458-6689-11e4-ad6b-172bf9700635.html. (#2) Is the subject likely to remain a low profile person? No, she's already a public figure, a politician, and she has taken her fight to SCOTUS. She will be remembered in history books for her unlawful activism and for obstructing the constitutional rights of US citizens. (#3) Is the event significant or is the individual's role substantial and well documented? Obviously. There are 841,000 Google news hits for "Kim Davis"+"Rowan County", a strong indication that the subject is of significant notability as required by . Every major news source has covered the subject, some in exhaustive detail
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: It's obvious BLP1E. Everything she is known for is related to the gay marriage issue and while it's a big deal in the 24 hour news cycle, it won't even be a trivial pursuit question in 10 years. Pure 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: I have no words to counter this immature afd nomination. Reasons mentioned in  are quite self explanatory
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PEOPLE)

Comment: Will somebody please  this and put this AfD out of its misery
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: This woman is notable: her case has gone to the Supreme Court as well as the 6th Circuit Court. Keep also per Nomader's comment and eople
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Doesn't meet  because it has to meet all three conditions, and it does not meet #3: ''If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.'' She is the George Wallace of our time, standing in that doorway. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I was wondering about this myself, but discovered, as others have said above, that keeping is easily justified by the third condition of the |BLP1E guideline. This is a very notable event which has been covered in multiple news articles, and her role within the event is primary, therefore a biography is appropriate. &ndash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Significant coverage in reliable sources, which is distinct to the coverage the case has gotten. Easily meets the notability requirements of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: To apply  and delete is to stretch both the second and third criteria.  The controversy is, at least for now, notable in its own right.  Also, by consciously taking a public religious stand, rather than allowing one of her deputies to issue the licenses in her name, she has, at least for now, become a high-profile individual
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)