Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fluke

Sandra Fluke

Sandra Fluke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(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)

NOTE A breakout article has been created at Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, with a summary at § Sandra Fluke. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep After reading over Ms. Fluke's wiki page as well as the proposed, merged with Rush Limbaugh-Fluke page, I believe Ms. Fluke's page is essential in representation of factual truth in order of events. The proposed 'merged' page would not provide enough information in regards to Ms. Fluke's political past(undergrad, affiliations, etc) to paint a clear picture for a base of reference for an individual to become fully educated upon the reason of her fame(Limbaugh slirs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevealed (talk • contribs) 09:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Strong Delete What an incredibly ridiculous article, and what an incredibly abusive exploitation of Wikipedia. The article's author is blatantly biased, WP:PROMOTION as evident from the "also see" references. It doesn't matter how carefully worded the article is in its appearance to appear unbiased and factual--it's still a propganda piece. Carefully word Mein Kampf and it'd still be a work of horror. Worst of all, we do NOT want Wikipedia to become a harbor for propagandists, political bullies, or falsifiers. What one does NOT say can be as damning of the author as what one DOES say. Delete this piece of trash-faux-journalism FOR SURE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.154.217 (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • Yes, it does WP:NOTNEWS. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Delete Best to file under Limbaugh, Rush, and delete article. Congressional testimony unremarkable WP:NOTADVOCATE 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 WP:ONEEVENT. Certainly newsworthy, but both conservative and liberal zealots confuse the issues WP:PROMOTION . Debates and edit wars becoming a non-factual free for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete per Vernon. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:37pm • 07:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is a guideline, but WP:BLP1E is a WP:POLICY. Speciate (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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 WP:NOTSOAPBOX . Fails to have any lasting significance worthy of an article to me. —Ed!^(talk) 08:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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. --McDoobAU93 19:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)

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? --McDoobAU93 19:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

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. --McDoobAU93 22:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Per classic WP:BLP1E.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Classic WP:BLP1E. Doesn't match at all.Phd8511 (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

Out of curiosity, what is the "second event"? --McDoobAU93 00:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The rejection of her proposed testimony before a Congressional committee is one event, and Rush Limbaugh's comments and the reaction to them, and the later apology, is at least one event, perhaps more. However, after reviewing WP:BLP1E again, I don't think that portion of the policy supports deletion. The idea there is to protect people who have a low profile, and who seek to maintain a low profile, from being the subject of an article based solely on one event. This person is an activist on a particular issue, has sought a high profile on that issue, and to at least some degree has achieved it. I think the arguments on this page about "one event" are really about notability, not protecting a BLP, so what may be applicable here is the guideline WP:1E, not the policy WP:BLP1E. The language of 1E is not airtight, it is really just a series of suggestions. The real question is, has this person become notable? I think she has. Neutron (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Temporarily newsworthy, but not encyclopedic. The article is just a coatrack for politics anyway. Peacock (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BLP1E. Truthsort (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Keep. WP:BLP1E does not apply Sandra Fluke is not"likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 02:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Has she announced she's running for Congress or something? Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
  • For a single event - her congressional testimony. Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

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

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

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

• 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)

Break

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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. --McDoobAU93 17:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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.--McDoobAU93 19:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. --McDoobAU93 19:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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

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

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Each of those events got widespread news coverage. Wikipelli's silly example of "driving to capitol hill" didn't. Rush's "apology" was another event which got coverage, and her rejection of the "apology" is yet another event covered by worldwide newsmedia. Or the entire series of events could be covered by one article about the series of events, as one more "controversy" involving Rush, rather than a bio article about the individual Rush attacked this time. Edison (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• 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 Duckduckgo) 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Break

• 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)

• What law? They just state the comments that he and other made. Casprings (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• United States defamation law Theworm777 (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're wrong - defamation and libel are in no way implicated by the article or this discussion. I think it would be better for everyone if you would refrain from such statements in the future. Nathan ^T 17:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Looks like someone closed the discussion. [1] --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, some person removed the AfD template, but it has since been restored. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: textbook case of BLP1E, and with the creation of Limbaugh-Fluke flap no need to have this article. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • What is the one event, Lionelt? It's not a flap with Limbaugh, because (as I have shown very close above) there was plenty of coverage of her before Limbaugh talked about her. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: many new editors showing up to !vote here. Can we have one of those "If someone asked you to come here... this is not a vote..." banners added? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • We certainly can, and I thought of adding it myself. On the other hand, the comments here by new editors are civil enough, and seem on average hardly less informed than do those by experienced editors. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep.:From outside the US, the story started when she was denied the opportunity to testify to the Issa committee, symbolic that no woman was involved. When she did testify, she brought to everybody's attention that health care in the US is not just between a patient and a doctor; that employers and insurers make harmful judgements that they ought to have no business making. Then comes Limbaugh, and his rant about her imagined sex life, gratuitous insults included. Limbaugh made the story a firestorm, but has successfully derailed the importance of her testimony. Googling "Sandra Fluke" excluding results mentioning Limbaugh, as other have suggested, is very useful. Trishm (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep.: Much has already been said, other than I suspect much of the Keep/Delete discussion itself has to do with the political controversies. Those who agree with her I suspect vote "keep" those who disagree with her "delete." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avalongod (talk • contribs) 04:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Response This is an inappropriate conjecture, per WP:CIVIL. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - This individual has gained significant prominence over a relatively short amount of time, which is not grounds for deletion. In addition, the whole controversy over Rush Limbaugh's comments have gained notoriety of such significance that I feel this page has the qualifications for remaining. DarthBotto _talk•cont 04:29, 05 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. The event in question is her non-testimony before the congressional committee. Everything else is just media flap and fall out from that; this coverage looks broad enough to warrant mention at some article, but we hold biographies of living persons to a higher standard. I think a more instructive search than those described above is to use the date delimiting option. This returns a number of results, but they all relate to: (1) Fluke's activities as a law student (useful if we were reviewing a grant application, but they do not establish notability); or (2) older articles with newer material appended (a flaw in the limiter algorithm). In my uninformed layperson's opinion, I think that there is a good chance that she intends to become a public figure at some later point, but for now we do not have the sourcing necessary to construct an article with any depth about the person that is not just a coatrack for an article about the event (with apologies to the people who worked on the article, as it is pretty decently written and covers all the major points I could find). FiveColourMap (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There's some truth in what you say, but after her non-testimony to the committee came her testimony to the other committee (or pseudo-committee as it's sometimes unkindly termed); coverage of this (such as a syndicated article by Dana Milbank that's here and elsewhere) does talk about the non-testimony but it also talks about the testimony. Newsworthily and columnworthily, the prez of Georgetown University very publicly praised her for this testimony; true, the praise wouldn't have come without the attack, but he did choose to utter public praise of her. This makes her rather extraordinary among law students. At this point, I might bring up a list of nobodies who have articles in WP, whereupon you or others would (very rightly) point me to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. So instead, here are a couple of articles that were kept (and not via "no consensus") in recent AfDs: Jasmin Bhasin, Ghanem Ibrahim al-Hassan; I have trouble believing that Fluke's notability (whether Wikipedia-style or real-world) is less than theirs. -- Hoary (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Or less then losing contestent in season ___ of American Idol or whatever non-relevent and unknown piece of pop culture. I created the page because I search for it. It wasn't there. I was honestly surprised, so I created it. To me, this whole debate is silly. What the heck is the level of media coverage needed for being "notability." Wiki certainly has many articles of people much less notable (second tier people running for office, for example). Wiki says the stands is persistence of media coverage. That always brings me the question. How many days is persistent? If you are going to take the article down, at least do it for some objective measurable reason. Right now, to a "new editor", it simply looks like you are picking and choosing. Casprings (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment This entry is libel against Rush Limbaugh. It claims that he said that women who use contraception want to be paid for sex. This is patently false. Additionally, he is not against birth control, which this claim implies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.21.131 (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If an assertion in an article is not backed with reliable sources, or if you can present reliable sources to show that an assertion backed with less reliable sources is false, then you may edit the article accordingly, or at least state your objection on its talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, merge and redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, as suggested by WP:BLP1E. FurrySings (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Merge with Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke Controversy. Even if she's only notable for one thing it's still notable. Maybe if she does other notable stuff this article can go back up. AddThreeAndFive (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete merge, and redirect to Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke Controversy, and eventually Rush Limbaugh Controversies. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment There is a proposal [2] to merge Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy into Rush Limbaugh. If both Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy and Sandra Fluke are deleted, there will be no place for the article contents to go. At most, only one should be deleted. FurrySings (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Keep There is coverage from some news sources, such as BBC News for example. I'm just not sure if this source is reliable enough to make the person notable. Other than that, there is some encyclopaedic information that are accurately referenced. Minima© (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. It's BLP1E because if Rush hadn't opened his mouth there'd be no article, and COATRACK because it's much more about the incident than the person, and always will be unless this person gains further notability. There are several arguments here that amount to "We should keep this article until we see if further notability is established". No, if further notability is established we can create another article. Since when was an article subject "notable until proven non-notable"? Another unconvincing argument: "She has Google hits from before the Limbaugh controversy", with an attempt to prove this by a Google search for sandra fluke -limbaugh. If you look closely at the search results, you'll see that most references are from the past few days, with a few from around the time she was just about to testify. The rest are mostly blogs. szyslak (t) 16:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep.: Sandra Fluke needs too keep her own page

To merge her with Rush Limbaugh is an insult to this young woman. Merge the Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy to her page on Wikipedia. She is an important and newsworthy person in her own right and I am betting we hear more from her. Instead of merging everything towards Limbaugh as if he is the important one here is a negative to all women who are outraged by his conduct and who seeks to learn more about this woman. I just Google her today and her bio page is where I went, not his and not the controversy page. Keep her page and merge the dispute to her page. This is not the end of this I feel and she certainly is news worthy for her advocacy. JoeyD2010 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Break

• Strong Keep: Clearly notable incident and person. If contents ends up in something like Resignation of Shirley Sherrod or Balloon boy hoax to assuage the BLP1E'ers so be it, it doesn't fool anyone.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• I'm kind of on both sides on this issue. Originally BLP1E was BLP1BE (i.e. one bad event), and it was excluded because it unfairly painted the whole life of an individual based on a single bad event that generated notoriety. This case is a little different, and roughly analogous to the Joe the Plumber issue handled in this deletion discussion. In that case the article was kept by the administrator, and that ultimately proved to be the correct decision. Based on that, my vote is keep for now. Nathan ^T 17:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not. " and this WP:NOTSOAPBOX is one of them. So Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability dont matter and is voided read it. Its a fact.Theworm777 (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how NOTSOAPBOX is related to this article? And verifiability is a core policy; there are no circumstances in article space where it doesn't matter or is void. Nathan ^T 17:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep - as this non-trivial coverage shows Sandra Fluke is covered by sources outside of the Limbaugh incident. Per Hoary, google "sandra fluke" -limbaugh (note the hyphen in front of "limbaugh"), and you will see Fluke has notability outside of the Limbaugh incident.VR _talk 17:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Hoary, Neutron et al. Writegeist (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• strong delete - WP:BLP1E particularly considering Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy also exists-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In addition, Wikipedia does not need more vandal magnet pages that will need to be perpetually defended from crap like this [3]-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Delete because it might get vandalized" is not typically a strong argument. Nathan ^T 22:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

When the article has had to be locked to prevent vandalism "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" certainly comes into play. Who is going to be watching this article about a nobody in 5 years or 5 months or even 5 weeks except Rush fans with an axe to grind? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Don't Delete, but Merge with Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. The event is certainly notable (it is sufficient consider how much international coverage it received, i.e. Italian coverage: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9],[10],[11], [12], [13], [14], [15] and more), but the subject seems to meet BLP1E. Cavarrone (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Satisfies WP:BIO. Incident is notable, but more importantly person is notable APART from the incident, as has been demonstrated in numerous contents. A historical note: we kept the page for Joe the Plumber following a similar debate. Countercouper (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: The controversy is the notable thing, and that belongs in the article about Limbaugh. She is notable for one event only, and will not remain notable for long. Ithizar (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: notable person in the middle of a media firestorm during an election year in USA.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Election year media storms are classic FARK and even MORE reason to delete. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: Seems like a straightforward BLP1E. As of now she has zero notability otherwise; perhaps in the future. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: "Redirect" or "merge" also seem fine. "Keep" seems far-fetched at this point. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: as per above --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy per Cavarrone. Subject is notable within context of the event, but does not currently meet the notability standard for a stand-alone article.--JayJasper (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep (or Merge, if ever deletion is ultimately decided), per arguments by User:Vice regent and User:Countercouper: Sandra Fluke was reasonably notable before the Limbaugh incident. -Mardus (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • What nonsense. No article on a person as little known as she was ever been kept at AfD. Speciate (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Wurzelbacher. Pretty similar circumstances. Nathan ^T 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Just how do you measure known-ness, Speciate? Care to comment on the "keep" (and not merely "no consensus") conclusions for the very recent AfDs on Jasmin Bhasin and Ghanem Ibrahim al-Hassan? -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I refer to her prior to the one event. Pull up one example of a person as little known as she was. Speciate (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I respect your clarity, Speciate. You clearly say (some way above) that the one event was the denial of a chance to testify. Uh-huh. Yes, I agree with you: she was little known before this. But you immediately add that All else is media circus around the event. Perhaps it is, IFF you define "media circus" very broadly indeed. But Wikipedia covers media circuses. If it didn't, well, there might not be coverage of a great number of people, Limbaugh and Sam/Joe the plumber among them. Though actually the substance of what Fluke said to Pelosi et al. was covered in the press, and to call this part of a "media circus" seems a huge exaggeration. -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge & Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy per JayJasper. There is a clear violation of WP:BLP1E, which clearly states that if an individual is known for a single event and likely to remain low-profile afterwards then the information should be contained in the page regarding the event. Jhfireboy Talk 01:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete One event only, otherwise of no interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suara Gondang (talk • contribs) 01:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - This is precisely what WP:BLP1E is intended to prevent, articles on otherwise ordinary people who land in the spotlight because of one situation. Tarc (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Tell us what the "one event" is, Tarc, and then we can see whether/how the reliable sources for it add up. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I've already skimmed your exhaustive-bordering-on-pedantic replies to many, many editors above. She is known for nothing other than being slurred by a political pundit, despite your valiant efforts to squeeze notability from nothing. Tarc (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Ms Fluke has not become noteworthy enough yet to warrant an encyclopedia entry. Tens of thousands of people have testified before congress and millions of people hold her views on contraception. The one and only thing that makes her unique is that she was attacked by Rush Limbaugh. That simply doesn't meet the qualification for a wikipedia article. Falcon50c 01:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcon50c (talk • contribs)
• Delete This appears to be clearly within the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BLP1E. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, also notability. Neither Fluke's activism nor her testimony warrant an article. Limbaugh's commentary is the cause célèbre. It would best best to place this content in a subsection of the Limbaugh article. Armandthecorsair (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I would be in favour of keeping. Its not a question of notability, its the fact that she has become an iconic victim that represents the debate over women's reproductive rights. I am saying this as a member of the Feminism project on Wikipedia. To say this is about Limnaugh is missing the point, people like him target others every day. Fluke will be remembered for bringing this issue to a critical point in the US political debate, and for the efforts to silence her voice. Frankly I would find it offensive as a feminist to have her position subsumed under Limbaugh. Those who think her name will go away in 15 minutes have failed to realise just how serious this issue is, or as some commentators have pointed out, why is the debate about women's reproductive rights dominated by men? Ironically the amount of comment on this page testifies to her notability - symbolically more than instrumentally --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Response Notability is precisely what it (and all other articles' existence on Wikipedia) is about. See also WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CRYSTAL. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong delete and merge. This should be a pretty obvious call per our usual policy. I find it disturbing that many of the support votes here seems to have given an explicit political reason for keeping this page - something about "deserves to be honored" and "protecting the victim" from being "depersonalized". This deletion has nothing to do with the politics; we already have an article about the controversy and a further article on controversies about Rush Limbaugh. That more then suffices to cover this issue; at this point, this article is nothing but an unnecessary distraction for most readers. (note that the general consensus for whether we ought to have a biography is whether the person is only notable for one incident. If this is the case, and there already exists an article covering the incident, then it makes no sense to have a separate article for the persons involved.) JimSukwutput 03:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  I'll repeat what I said at Talk:Rush Limbaugh: The Blunt Amendment, which was attached to some highway bill, would have allowed a moral (not only religious) exception to insurance coverage for any health service (not only contraception). It was for tactical reasons, on both sides, that this was narrowed to a religious freedom issue vs a contraception issue. And for many Republicans, it was any and all mandates they opposed, not on moral grounds but because they wanted any avenue to undermine Obama's health reform. So every time you narrow this issue to something specific, you add a heap of POV. The reason I continue to feel, for now that Sandra Fluke is a good article title is that we can all agree, without bias, that Sandra Fluke's name is Sandra Fluke. Anything else you invent carries a POV. Although Blunt Amendment has a nice, neutral ring to it too.

  One thing that you do when making this into a "Rush Limbaugh controversy" is make it not a Republican Party controversy, i.e. you deny that Limbaugh represents a broad slice of Republican or conservative thought. He's only speaking for, and embarrassing, himself. Maybe so, but if Wikipedia takes that position, it is taking sides, and violating NPOV, in favor of the GOP and against activists who say this controversy is not only about one radio guy and one young woman, but an attack on all women by an entire party (see comment just above yours for further elaboration). A neutral position is somewhere in between, I know not where. Maybe Blunt Amendment? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I honestly don't understand this argument. I started to randomly search wiki articles. There is some highly un-noteworthy stuff out there. ObsCure (video game), Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta , Benders ... etc. I went to a random wiki generator to get these. I fully admit, I created this page because I searched and wondered why there wasn't a page. I also admit, I was outraged by the comments. With that said, I really really don't get the standard. It is supposed to be about "persistent" media coverage. How the heck does, ObsCure (video game) have more persistent coverage? Casprings (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  You have to at least pick examples that have been nominated for deletion; any of those articles might in fact get deleted if you were to try. Instead look at Joe the Plumber or Edith Macefield, Levi Johnston, Jared Lee Loughner, Susan Boyle, Amanda Knox, etc etc etc. And of course, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Okay those. How is she less notable then those? I really don't understand. Casprings (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirect/Merge with Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I can see this is headed for a "no consensus", perpetuating the myth, "We don't vote, we discuss". Many of the "keeps" are clearly based on personal preference and politics rather than guidelines, and I hope that the closer will take this into consideration. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  And you can't see that many of the delete or merge !votes advance a political point of view that favors the Republican Party? The sooner this is all forgotten (or pinned only on Limbaugh and not his whole party), the better for the GOP. The reason for the lack of consensus is that the issue is in fact highly divisive. Not because half of Wikipeidans are brainwashed partisan hacks and the other half only want to delete this ginned up controversy without a second's thought for who benefits from that deletion. If only it were so simple. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No I can't see that. I don't give a rat's ass about the Republican Party. This is a straightforward case of WP:BLP1E and our guidelines are clear on how to handle that. Many of the "keeps" openly state that they are in favor of keeping because of political reasons, and that is clearly unacceptable for AfD purposes. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two conditions for a BLP1E deletion. One, the news coverage is only in the context of one event. So you have to believe that the Senate testimony, and Limbaugh's insults, and her subsequent activities, were not three or more events, but only one. Then, if you buy that, you further have to believe that this law student who was an activist who had frequently written and spoken on contraception, was really only a low-profile individual who never sought the spotlight, and you're going to prognosticate with your crystal ball that she is likely to remain low profile. You really expect to see consensus that she is in all likelihood just going to go home and be forgotten? Will turn down speaking engagements? Will not do any more interviews between now and November? Won't be featured in Democratic advertisements and speeches? Asked to share the stage with candidates across the country?

I'm prepared to believe that she might go home and never be heard from again. It's possible. But likely? No. I wouldn't go that far. And one must be willing to go that far to meet BLP1E. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And Dennis, I have no problem with your statement or your opinion on the matter. I do have a big problem with people saying "keep, because I'm a feminist" or "keep, rather than merge to Rush Limbaugh because I don't like him", or "keep, because we have articles on less-notable subjects". Joefromrandb (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. Subject does not to my knowledge have notability outside the incident with Limbaugh. This biographical content can be covered in brief in that page. --Pstanton (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete textbook WP:BLP1E. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, there are some POV issues, but the subject has received significant coverage to merit an article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This is reminiscent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. I agree that this is a classic WP:BLP1E, but controversy is notable and should have an article.--В и к и T 12:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and then Merge/Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. I agree she's a classic WP:BLP1E. Youreallycan 14:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, I came to this article from outside the US, seeking to find out a bit of background behind all the media fuss. It is a useful page - if she fades to obscurity a small section on Limbaugh's page will do, if she continues to be a public figure this article will evolve. Wikipedia is not paper, so while the controversy exist (both right here on this deletion page, and in the media), having this article is useful information (ie, the purpose of an encyclopedia). Bendav (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The policies have already been stated and I don't wish to repeat them, but I think that this is just unnecessary and could be mentioned in other articles. I'm not sure how MS. Fluke feels about it, but I feel like she's not happy to be the focus of any more attention for being called a "slut" by a lunatic. That in itself does not warrant a deletion, but as I said, the policies have already been mentioned and that is why they are in place.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)