Deletion of 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

Comment: per . This is an encyclopedia, which should have articles about subjects of timeless notability, rather than a mirror of each transient news topic about some publicity stunt or attention seeking individual's actions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: we have also to consider BLP aspects. See #Avoid victimization on "''dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.''" It could be argued that by her foolishness in giving the document to three friends the author has forfeited her claim to consideration; I am not persuaded even of that, but certainly her subjects come under that policy clause. The original article linked a "redacted" version of the document with blacked out names and blurred faces, but it would not be hard to identify them, and inevitably an IP soon linked an unredacted version which named names and included clear pictures. I have removed that link, but no doubt it will be added again if the article is kept
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: I'm going to |disregard policies and guidelines for a second and go all the way back to |the five pillars. The very first one is "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia." When it comes down to it, deletion policies and guidelines are aimed to guide us towards figuring out what actually belongs in an enyclopedia. This simply isn't encyclopedic content &ndash; it's news. Regardless of how viral it is, when it comes down to it, in a few years nobody is going to look up something like this in an encyclopedia. If it really is something that needs to be looked up, probably the first place to look would be news archives. Wikipedia is not a news archive, it is an encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:5P)

Comment: This is not an article about the faux thesis, it's an article about the controversy that the faux thesis generated. I am the principal editor on this article, and I can assure you that I would never have created this article if it was just about the faux thesis. I agree that the faux thesis itself would fall under the  policy, but the controversy surrounding it (i.e. the questions of double standard, privacy, and other considerations) is notable enough and unusual enough to surpass the threshold of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per . I agree with Shirik. It is not part of Wikipedia's role to help these passing scandals "go viral." Nominator mentions the GNG, but that explicitly says that "''significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion...  For example, such an article may violate |what Wikipedia is not''", and that is the case here. There are also BLP considerations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOT)