Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliza Shvarts
To say that this article violates  is most likely true. To say that  overrides  is patently true. The topic of the article is currently receiving attention from numerous news sources, and has been the subject of lesser such attention repeatedly. The article meets the , as well as ,, and , as well as not '''violating''' any policies contained within  (which both diminish the image of Wikipedia and open it to legal pursuit) While including it serves the encyclopedia no harm, excluding it certainly may. It's true, the argument is straight from the inclusionist playbook -- . But looking above, the comments for delete are also generally .  comes to mind, and I think the combination of that and all the previous random policy documents should illustrate that it's not sensical to delete a three day old verifiably sourced article on the basis of non-notability. Fuck, did I make any sense at all? 
— User:Avillia, 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BLP1E||WP:IAR||WP:BLP1E||WP:5P||WP:V||WP:NOTE||WP:RS||WP:BLP||WP:NOHARM||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:WOTTA (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)