Deletion of Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy

Comment: Wikipedia is not the newspaper.  If you want content on this subject, it should be in Limbaugh's article; an entire article on this is badly in violation of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: under its current form; in its current form, it is little more than news coverage, |which is the remit of Wikinews, not us. I've always been of the opinion that coverage of current events should be retrospective and we shouldn't cover everything just because it's sourced; if anything, it enforces systemic bias to the present. '''However''', there should be an article about the birth control issue, of which this should be a part
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This is probably more of a news story than an encyclopedia article, so Wikinews is probably the better venue. That having been said, this is causing Rush to lose sponsors, so it may have a ripple effect on his show. If so (and that remains to be seen... ), some of this content could be merged into Rush Limbaugh or maybe someday be an article at such a time that there is enough commentary about this to warrant one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: While I agree that much of the notoriety is temporary, the event is having a lasting effect and clearly meets notability requirements.  is not applicable, there are plenty of secondary sources used as references
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: to Blunt Amendment or some other ''highly neutral'' and ''broad'' title.  There are a raft of |POV issues here. If you redirect to Rush Limbaugh, you help the GOP and conservatives make this about one man's loud mouth, and not the alleged sexist attitudes of an entire party. If you redirect to Sandra Fluke, you play into the hands of liberal activists who are working overtime to put a human face on the debate over insurance mandates. Other possible article titles could mention health insurance, moral exceptions for health services, contraception, and religious freedom. Each of these represents a certain POV, none of them neutral. Each of those is only ''one aspect'' of the Blunt Amendment, which sought to carve out an exception for "''moral'' reasons" (not only religious ones) to the health insurance mandate. It was an exception large enough to cover practically anything, and Republicans, for rhetorical purposes, narrowed it to religious freedom, while Democrats narrowed it contraception, and further personalized it to be about one likable young woman. Limbaugh played into their hands by making it about one boorish man. To avoid playing along with any of the propagandists here, a neutral, broad title that is evocative of next to nothing, Blunt Amendment, encourages the reader to go beyond the title and read the whole story. And it encourages editors to include all the relevant facts, not just the salacious details of Limbaugh's insults and the drama that ensued
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Mega-tonnage of  out there to establish notability till the end of time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: It's an important event in the U.S. presidential election cycle; I  it off from Sandra Fluke (also at AfD), to preserve the information about the Limbaugh-Fluke flap; and created Contraceptive mandates for the issue that sparked the name-calling issue. A summary of the controversy is being maintained at Rush Limbaugh|Rush Limbaugh (section Rush Limbaugh#Sandra Fluke comments|Sandra Fluke comments), in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT)