Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog poop girl (4th nomination)
of this odorferous article. The article is about an event and its many repercussions, and uses as article name, the "name" given the event in sources. The article is about the event and its repercussions, not about the woman. The woman discussed became herself a public figure when she personally made a public apology. So covering her (in)actions, the public's outcry, the subsequent results, and her public aplogy is not a BLP violation... no more than an article about Mark David Chapman is a violation. And it does demonstrate hitorical notability as shown by its multiple sources... heck, I love that the failed 2005 deletion effort itself even made the news: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/30/arts/30cats.html?_r=1 New York Times.  To those quoting #NEWS, it has to be remembered that if it happened today or yesterday, it was news.... but if it happened 4 or 5 or 20 or 50 years ago, it has become history and can be treated properly in retrospect. Point here being is that wikipedia depends quite heavily on "news" as sources for its articles. Nearly everything within these pages was "news" at one time or another. The goal here is to give balanced coverage of a subject and source back to reliable sources... and that has been done. And to thos faling back on  as an argument, this is not a BLP and ONEEVENT does not apply
— User:MichaelQSchmidt, 06:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOT||WP:ONEEVENT (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)