Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fluke: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:01, 5 March 2012

Sandra Fluke

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comment She's not (yet?) notable. I'm not sure if she constitutes a reasonable search term as a redirect for something like Rush Limbaugh controversies or Criticism of Rush Limbaugh... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE A breakout article has been created at Limbaugh-Fluke flap, with a summary at § Sandra Fluke. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not yet notable? how many sources from quality news sites do you need? she's both notable and verifiable. Paintedxbird (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She has done multiple interviews on multiple networks. She is both notable and verifiable. While she is new in the eyes of the public, I doubt she is a "one-event" wonder. She isn't now. She was denied the ability to testify before congress (1 news story). Did so to Democratic members (2 News Stories). Got Attacked by Rush (3 News Stories) Did multiple interviews (4 News Stories). Even beyond that, she has been an active voice in NY State politics before any of this. She advocated for changes in domestic law and those changes happened. That also provides evidence that she is a notable person.Casprings (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There was only one event; the denial of a chance to testify. All else is media circus around the event. Speciate (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure I agree, but let's suppose for a moment that you're right and it's a mere media circus around junk food news. Does Wikipedia policy distinguish between events and non-events? If the latter are verifiable, I hadn't thought so. (Certainly it writes up plenty of people of dubious achievement: Paris Hilton, Jade Goody, etc.) Wikipedia is of course not a reliable source, but here's what it says about junk food news: a sardonic [sic; surely sarcastic or similar is meant] term for news stories that deliver "sensationalized, personalized, and homogenized inconsequential trivia", especially when such stories appear at the expense of serious investigative journalism (my emphasis). Newspapers have a given number of pages, TV stations a given number of hours, news companies a given number of salaried employees. No such limits here, and it's not as if work on a biographical/political article is likely to divert the attention of mathematically-minded contributors from improving the article on the Curtis–Hedlund–Lyndon theorem, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just had a look at WP:DEL-REASON and this falls under none of the categories. Paintedxbird (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:SINGLEEVENT. Adding it to the article on Limbaugh and making this a redirect would be fine per the WP:SINGLEEVENT rules. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best to file under Limbaugh, Rush, and delete article. Congressional testimony unremarkable and full of factual inconsistencies. Limbaugh criticism turning from a factual critique to obscenity is the story, and generally condemned by politicians of all stripes. Certainly newsworthy, but both conservative and liberal zealots confuse the issues. Debates and edit wars becoming a non-factual free for all.
Strong Keep this is very notable, it's currently involving the most senior politicians in america, is being covered internationally and is an ongoing story that'll likely continue for a while yet. this isn't even a question about notability or verifiability as the evidence is crystal clear. it's a major case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Paintedxbird (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vernon. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:37pm • 07:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is a guideline, but WP:BLP1E is a WP:POLICY. Speciate (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. While it's always possible she will go on to write a book or something, as of this moment, people only know her for the controversy of the one event. Fails to have any lasting significance worthy of an article to me. —Ed!^(talk) 08:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's what WP:BLP1E says, with my own comments on this: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event,[1] and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual,[2] we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.[3] [1] Yes, this is her. [2] We simply don't yet know if her profile will remain low. However my reading of the policy is that it's designed to protect the privacy of people whose privacy has temporarily been interrupted by events outside their control; by contrast, before Limbaugh commented, Fluke had volunteered to raise her profile quite some way. [3] There is no event article (or there wasn't the last time I looked). Perhaps it would be a good idea to create one, and (at least in the short term) have her name redirect there. ¶ Mr. Vernon's suggestion above of having her name redirect to the article on Limbaugh would be a very bad idea in at least two ways. First, the guardians of the article on Limbaugh would strenuously oppose importation of much material as skewing the coverage of him. Secondly, for anybody's name to redirect to the article of somebody who spoke of her as Limbaugh did of Fluke seems like adding Wikipedia insult to injury. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." and "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Note, 'If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.' - the POTUS called this individual about this topic. If this is to be included in another article I would suggest those recommending deletion suggest potential homes. -- non-registered user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.113.162 (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agrere with Vernon and Jason. Regarding Hoary's comments, this isn't a forum where we try to protect people's feelings. It is as close to an unbiased recitation of the facts as possible. This is a news story because of Mr. Limbaugh's comments. Had he not made them, it is unlikely her presence before the Democratic House members would have garnered significant media coverage outside of C-SPAN. The most fitting place for this piece is in the (undoubtedly) lengthy list of controversies instigated by Rush Limbaugh, and therefore on his page. Recommend delete/merge into Limbaugh's article(s). Daimb (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However unlikely Limbaugh-independent media coverage may have been, it occurred. The Beast: "Sandra Fluke Wanted to Speak Up for Women Before Congress". Ms: "Sandra Fluke Testifies at House Democratic Steering Committee Hearing". Another right-wing pundit wrote independently of Limbaugh: "Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control, Student Tells Pelosi Hearing Touting Freebie Mandate". (Yes, yes, the last one sounds like a piece from The Onion.) There's quite a bit more; simply google "sandra fluke" -limbaugh (note the hyphen in front of "limbaugh") for it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Why delete an article about a scholar whom I heard of (N.B. I live in Europe, the Netherlands) two weeks ago (so: well before the gossip started) through the news about chairman Darrel Issa denying her to testify before a House or Senate comittee and retain an article about a talk show host?

The 'event' or 'non-event' discussion is a question of personal taste. If the article is of decent enough quality: then keep. Sintermerte (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia has special policies regarding living people, read about it at WP:BLP. Speciate (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, she may sue Limbaugh, suggesting that there is a slim chance that Wikipedia, and whatever admin closes this as keep, could also be sued. Speciate (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the existence of an article here about her brings the risk that Wikipedia would be sued for it? I don't follow. I'd be interested in an explanation. (Incidentally, the text of the CSM article you link to doesn't suggest to me that she'll sue him, though of course its title raises this possibility.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speciate, please read WP:NLT and do not make what amounts to threats or predictions of legal action against Wikipedia, or its editors or admins. Edison (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest that we suspend this discussion for the time being. My leanings toward the discussion are for deletion because this largely regards a single event. I think, however, that this may become something more, so I would suggest that we wait a bit, and if nothing happens, integrate the relevant information into Rush Limbaugh's article, or perhaps an article about this birth control debate as a whole. Tealwisp (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:BLP1E in my book. Best treated in a section on Rush's article. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 17:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:BLP1E was written for this type of article. If she becomes prominent for something else later on, this should certainly be part of such a future article. We certainly can find this again at that time. --McDoob AU 93 19:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She testified, has openly interviewed, was caught in a major controversy, and is not making headlines about potentially filing a lawsuit against Rush Limbaugh. She is a law student taking action, a citizen called to testify before congress, and the subject of controversy. No question this entry is proper and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melabruha (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of individuals over the years meet those qualifications (citizens before Congress, law students, etc.), yet they don't have articles here unless they've done something else. What makes this one so special? --McDoob AU 93 19:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be the level of media coverage? "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" Casprings (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Persistent" doesn't mean "level".--Bbb23 (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's all coverage of a single event. But let's look at what you just mentioned ... persistance. This issue will old news in a few days, Ms. Fluke will go back to being a law student, Rush will go back to his radio show, and the rest of the world will discover something new to pique their curiosity. Unfortunately, it'll probably be something like who to vote for on American Idol, but that's the nature of our instant news cycle. Here today, gone tomorrow, forgotten next week ... not the best subject for a Wikipedia article. --[ip redacted] 03:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

How many days makes it Persistent? Its been a national news item sense 16 Feb., the date of the original congressional hearing. How much longer before it becomes "persistent" Also, this does dismiss any earlier work she did that is mentioned in the bio. Casprings (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E - "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable and the center of a lot of controversy, especially at the moment. As Tealwisp says above there is quite a potential for this to become more notable as well, their idea about a solution to this (integration into Rush Limbaugh article or elsewhere) may turn out to be the best solution. Subverted (talk • contribs) 21:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, at least for the time being. This is a story receiving a lot of media attention at the moment, with a very reasonable claim to be notable by our standards. It's too soon to delete the article; we should wait and see how it develops to see if there is a real case of lasting notability here. I recognise the WP:BLP1E point, but at best that's an argument for renaming this to Sandra Fluke controversy rather than deleting it. Robofish (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Strong Rename - Per Robofish, and definitely don't move this to article on Limbaugh, per argument 205.178.113.162 (guardians of Limbaugh article unlikely to be receptive). Also per Robofish, possible intermediate step is to rename page to Sandra Fluke controversy and tone down her biography and add detail on issues at hand, which are most clearly notable/encyclopedic for the long term. Adding her bio page later would be easy once it's clear she is notable beyond single issue, and Wikipedia can still provide the key information about the controversy now (while not being a news site, clearly a lot of people will try to get a view of this issue from WP). Stevemidgley (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Base it on number of hits. I searched specifically for her wiki, and was glad to find it. I would say keep based on desire of the public to have easily accessed information even about temporary situations. Pillowmurder (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine and good, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Anybody interested in this individual can find information through Bing and Google. Whenever the next major news story hits, this individual will be long forgotten. --McDoob AU 93 22:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per classic WP:BLP1E.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:BLP1E. Doesn't match at all.Phd8511 (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The longer this goes on, the more this comes to mind.
If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources
Lets accept that it is WP:BLP1E, which I don't. How much news coverage do you need to conclude that the individual is significant for one event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's already past "one event" and has received enough coverage for her statements, and the reaction to them, to be notable. Neutron (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what is the "second event"? --McDoob AU 93 00:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Temporarily newsworthy, but not encyclopedic. The article is just a coatrack for politics anyway. Peacock (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E. Truthsort (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This transcends Rush Limbaugh. She first gained notice by getting blocked by the senate + has done multiple interviews on multiple networks. MikeR (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.22.45 (talk) [reply]
Keep. WP:BLP1E does not apply Sandra Fluke is not"likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 02:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Has she announced she's running for Congress or something? Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Testified before Congress. Interviewed on national TV. Subject of nationally syndicated radio talk show (Limbaugh). Sympathetic phone call from President of the United States. Public apology by Limbaugh(!) Unquestionably notable. Blake Burba (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For a single event - her congressional testimony. Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply. The controversy regarding Issa and his committee and Fluke being prevented from testifying as a witness was an event and Limbaugh is another event. While they are related they are still separate. She is notable if only because for a period of time the whole controversy she is a part of has dominated the news. pearsonaj Pearsonaj (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Fluke's testimony is now in the U.S. Congressional Record, and this incident has sparked enormous debate and traffic around the American Web. Fluke's background, and the record of her encounter with Limbaugh, and the subsequent Internet-based outrage, will be of interest to Internet historians as an example of new, Web-based media interacting with (and overpowering?) potent structures of the "old media", such as the iconic host of American conservative talk radio.--A.M. Cascorbi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.88.14 (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response This is crystal-balling. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Koavf. You say This is crystal-balling, pointing to a section of WP:What Wikipedia is not that's about articles purveying unverifiable speculation. Where or how is A M Cascorbi suggesting an article that would include unverifiable speculation? -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Single event This poster is claiming that the biographical article in question is meaningful because it's not simply a BLP1E example, but something that will be a notable part of the clash of media in the future. We can't know that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we cannot. But WP:CRYSTAL is completely irrelevant here. -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Not if your rational for keeping is "someday, this will be important." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the page that you cite. It's about the content of articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is a neutral source of information about this controversial person/issue. I searched her name here specifically looking for impartial truths (and how to properly pronounce her name) and couldn't believe folks thought it should be deleted! Bleika1 (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete She is a nonentity whose notoriety is entirely based on being insulted by Rush Limbaugh. In thirty days, no one will remember her. Her 15 minutes is up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.102.186.183 (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realized that she was notorious. She is, however, known. Moreover, she's known quite independently of Limbaugh; simply google "sandra fluke" -limbaugh (note the hyphen in front of "limbaugh") to see for yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete She's not a notable figure anywhere outside of one of her fan's imaginations. There's nothing remarkable about her other than the fact that she was insulted by someone famous (unlike her). This is not worthy of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.75.106.72 (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everyone is quick to delete everything around here. The article is not gibberish, as many articles suggested for deletion are, and its topic is notable enough, even if the notability is recent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintin3265 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if deleted, to Rush Limbaugh#Fluke media flap, and take out anything that's just about her - except what is related to the media flap over her nationally-publicized remarks on contraception and Limbaugh's criticism of (1) the points she made and (2) her personally; the bipartisan backlash against Limbaugh for making personal attacks on Fluke; and his response to that backlash. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really fair to make her a part of Rush's page given the comments Rush made. That does seem like an injustice that the only place she would be mentioned is in his page.Casprings (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to dispense justice. Had Rush not mentioned her at all, nobody today would know who she is, regardless of testimony before Congress. When you boil it down, that's the "one event" that triggers WP:BLP1E in this case. Testifying before Congress isn't notable. Being mentioned by Rush Limbaugh, ultimately, isn't notable either. --McDoob AU 93 17:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being notable is judged by persistance of media coverage, per wiki. A national story, as written about in national media, has been going on since 16 Feb. How many more days before it is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's persistent media coverage over a single event. Her sole claim to notability is being mentioned by Rush. Being denied the chance to testify (especially when the rules aren't followed, as was the case then) isn't notable.--McDoob AU 93 19:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you on what the policy means with respect to persistence. The policy is referring to persistence of the news coverage on the single event ("The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.") (emphasis added by me) However, there is no brightline rule as to how much time has to pass to reach "persistence". This kind of juicy stuff usually lasts a while, so it would be quite some time before I think it reaches that level.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wiki:

If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.[5] In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.

Moving beyond rather this is one event or several, how persistent does the coverage have to be to qualify for article, like John Hinckley? It is an honest question.Casprings (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can concede that point. At the same time, there should be due consideration given to the event itself. The main reason for "persistent" coverage of this is because it's an election year, not because of what actually occurred. As I mentioned a while back, an attempted presidential assassin (the exception case for WP:BLP1E) is notable regardless of what else is going on, because it's rare. Everything about this event screams non-notable when compared to that. --McDoob AU 93 19:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is doted with one hit wonder bands and other example. Are these the standards? One has to develop some sort of objective standard. If you are going judge it by media coverage, then how many "days" of media coverage is persistent? It is hard to judge events by saying, "well, this happened this year, therefore it is not notable. Casprings (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's only notable for the controversy. Mention only on Rush's page if it is mentioned at all. At the very least rename. - Xcal68 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says:
Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion. If you do this, please note it on the AfD page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing admin)

Per Hoary, Subverted, Robofish, Stevemidgley, I'm thinking of being bold and moving the article to Sandra Fluke controversy.

But this would change the discussion from (a) whether we should have an article on the law student to (b) whether we should have an article on the controversy surrounding her Congressional testimony and Rush Limbaugh's response to her testimony. Is this okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing she would be "known" for is being called a slut by Limbaugh. This seems unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 18:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it is why she is notable. Let me ask you, had you considered creating the article before Limbaugh's comment? - Xcal68 (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Against move. I think it would be confusing. If the consensus is to keep the material and rename it, fine, but, otherwise, why make this AfD any more difficult and contentious than it already is?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per Paintedxbird's comment - how many sources do you need to consider her notable? There's a ton of prominent coverage of her. This is one of the most egregious instances of rampant and unfettered deletionist tyranny on Wikipedia.Ashwinr (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The basis for deletion, WP:BLP1E, is flawed, and at odds with WP:CRYSTAL. WP:BLP1E says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." How are we supposed to predict if she is likely to remain a low profile individual? Until the guideline gets its own house in order, keep the article and wait a year or two to see how this shakes out. Or go with WP:1E, a better written guideline, and follow the advice that "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." Somebody go write an article about the event, and then see how things look. Merging into Rush Limbaugh is a terrible idea; there are many more topics intersecting in this event than just him. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E is what it is, just like everything else at WP, and until it changes, we have to apply it as best we can. One thing it is not, though, is a guideline; it's policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. It says right at the top "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." See also Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. We most certainly do not have to follow BLP1E, particularly when we are up against an glaring flaw in the policy. We cannot delete or keep pages based on our own guesses about the future. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, now, a policy is a guideline, and a guideline is a policy? These are terms of art on Wikipedia and they mean differrent things: "Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts." (WP:PG) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you're right. I should have called it a policy. A flawed policy, in this specific instance because the most relevant part of the policy is impossible to apply. Anyone who thinks they know whether Fluke will continue to be low profile or not is engaging in flim flam much worse than sophistry. Whether it's a policy or guideline, we do not have to obey it blindly. We have good, solid, workable alternatives whenever policy fails us. We have good precedent for ignoring policy when necessary. We really need to get that bit about guessing who will do what in the future out of the policy page. What a nightmare. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Maybe rename 'Sandra Fluke incident or something. (1) This incident has drawn so much attention that people want more context, and it deserves more than a side paragraph in Rush Limbaugh, where she is depersonalized into the woman he called a "slut", "prostitute" and "round-heeled". There is nothing about Fluke herself in Rush Limbaugh. If we quote attacks against someone in Wikipedia, we should also show what she is really like as a person. (2) She's also notable for not being allowed to testify before Congress. So there's a good case that she is WP:NOTABLE and we should keep the entry even without renaming it. --Nbauman (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again: Consensus is building at Talk:Sandra Fluke for a WP:Summary style breakout article (see also WP:Splitting). I intend to do the same here as I did with Park51 and the Park51 controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E Notability begins and ends with this event and, in my opinion, only because it's an election year. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:BIO and GNG through significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Nothing here contrary to WP:BLP1E. Her attempt to testify, and the denial by Rep. Issa was one event. Her subsequent testimony before some Democrats was a second event. The attacks on her by Limbaugh was the third event. She defended herself in interviews: event four. President Obama called her to chat: Event five. Five is not equal to one. (There may be more earlier events which got notice in the preceding 30 years of her life, and events after the Limbaugh attacks). A rename to the incidents would be acceptable. Edison (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Fuzzy math, I think.... Would driving to Capitol Hill be yet another event? Finding a parking place before testifying? Using the ladies room on her way out of the hearing? Several of your 'events' are consequences/reactions to the 1 event - Rush's slamming her. Her attempt to testify is not even close to being "an event"... Her name was submitted late. Nothing notable. The rest is related only to 1 thing... Wikipelli ^Talk 23:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If driving to capitol hill landed you on the front page of a dozen newspapers, then that would indeed be an event. It's not for us to decide: our sources tell us what is an event and what isn't. Discussion like this get far off track when editors want to define things like this on their own -- or predict what the subject will do in the future -- rather than stick to the facts we have been given by our sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wikipelli. I was laughing when I read Edison's comments parsing the "events". BTW, Dennis, thanks for your comments above about policy vs. guideline (very gracious).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nbauman and others. Contrary to various comments above, she was in the news before Limbaugh took her up. I have already pointed this out above, but it seems that many people are much happier to utter their assumptions about her notability than to read the comments that have already been made, let alone to use a search engine for themselves. So let me explain again, and elaborate. You google "sandra fluke" -limbaugh (note the hyphen in front of "limbaugh") for it. Then you click on the News option. The results will be Sorted by relevance. Instead, take the option of Sorted by date. You'll get the latest first, so to see how coverage of her started, simply go to the last page (as of a few minutes ago, the 13th). You'll then see such hits as: "Democratic Women Walk Out of 'Freedom of Religion' Hearing", Religion Dispatches, 16 February; "Republican Hearing on Contraception: No Women Allowed", The Nation, 16 February; "Rep. Darrell Issa Bars Minority Witness, a Woman, on Contraception", ABC News, 16 February; "Rep. Darrell Issa's 'Religious Freedom' Sausage Fest", Mother Jones, 16 February; "Dems decry all-male House panel on WH contraception rule", CBS News, 16 February; "House Democrats walk out over all-male panel on contraception", Guardian, 16 February; "Woman Denied by Republican Darrell Issa Gives Testimony on Ed Show", Technorati, 17 February; "'Where are the women?' Outrage after birth control hearing is led by panel of five men", Daily Mail, 17 February; "'Where Are the Women?': Lawmakers Walk Out on Contraception Rule Hearing After Female Witness Barred", Democracy Now, 17 February; "Where are the women", Ms, 17 February; "Meet the ‘Inappropriate’ Female Witness Barred From Speaking at the Birth Control Hearing", Jezebel, 17 (?) February; "In Contraception Fracas, Pelosi and Other Dems Schedule Own Hearing", National Journal, 21 (?) February. If you want more hits, Google (or Bing, or Yahoo, or Duckduckrabbit) is your friend. ¶ But hang on, some may reasonably object: all you've done is to show that this one event started before Limbaugh; nevertheless, it's one (slightly protracted and complex) event; therefore her name should redirect somewhere. I'm sympathetic to this opinion. But where should it redirect? I'd suggest to United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. However, this is a strange article indeed. Its last and longest section is titled Recent events, 1997-2009. The title is appropriate: coverage stops in 2009. (And its page history shows that no, the article hasn't been vandalized.) Well, a move of the material on Fluke would throw this article on HCOGR off balance. And therefore, unless anyone has a better idea, Fluke keeps her article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two things briefly. First, I don't agree that the event starts with Limbaugh. It starts with the hearing and everything else is just a reaction, but, unlike Edison, all part of the same event. Second, I don't think not having anywhere to redirect an article is a valid reason for keeping it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you and I already agree to a considerable extent. However, you want the article deleted per BLP1E. As I've said, I'm partly persuaded by this idea. For a moment, let's assume that you're right. Now, the one event in which Fluke has taken a major role has obviously achieved Wikipedia-defined notability. Ergo, it should be written up somewhere. But what is this one event and where should it be written up? Or are you saying "Yes, it could and perhaps should be written up, but I can't be bothered to think where the right place should be, so let's just delete it"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the one event "has obviously achieved Wikipedia-defined notability". The whole point for those of us who have !voted delete is that it has NOT satisfied BLP1E or that BLP1E requires its deletion, however you want to put it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you say that what notability she does have (and perhaps this isn't much), is for one event. Now, what is this one event? I'd be surprised if you can define it in a way that both is convincing and lacks an adequate amount of reliable sourcing. However, my mind is open; please enlighten me. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This falls under WP:NOTSOAPBOX It can be considered defamation and libelous along with Limbaugh-Fluke flap which should be up for deletion with this. They both fall under what Wikipedia is not and could be breaking laws so it must be deleted. Theworm777 (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like someone closed the discussion. [1] --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, some person removed the AfD template, but it has since been restored. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *'''Comment''' just had a look at [[WP:DEL-REASON]] and this falls under none of the categories. [[User:Paintedxbird|Paintedxbird]] ([[User talk:Paintedxbird|talk]]) 07:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per [[WP:NOTNEWSPAPER]] and [[WP:SINGLEEVENT]].  Adding it to the article on Limbaugh and making this a redirect would be fine per the WP:SINGLEEVENT rules.  --[[User:Mr. Vernon|Mr. Vernon]] ([[User talk:Mr. Vernon|talk]]) 07:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' Best to file under [[Limbaugh, Rush]], and delete article. Congressional testimony unremarkable and full of factual inconsistencies. Limbaugh criticism turning from a factual critique to obscenity is the story, and generally condemned by politicians of all stripes. Certainly newsworthy, but both conservative and liberal zealots confuse the issues. Debates and edit wars becoming a non-factual free for all.
 *'''Strong Keep''' this is very notable, it's currently involving the most senior politicians in america, is being covered internationally and is an ongoing story that'll likely continue for a while yet. this isn't even a question about notability or verifiability as the evidence is crystal clear. it's a major case of [[WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT]] [[User:Paintedxbird|Paintedxbird]] ([[User talk:Paintedxbird|talk]]) 07:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per Vernon. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">'''[[User:M.O.X|<span style="color:#003366">James</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:M.O.X|<span style="color:#003366">Talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/M.O.X|<span style="color:#003366">Contribs</span>]])</sup> • 5:37pm''' •</span> 07:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)