Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fluke

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted. Many comments below cite the WP:BLP1E policy as a reason to delete. Some comments suggest that she was already notable before the "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" panel, however the text in the Wikipedia article does not support that argument, nor is there sufficient evidence provided here in the comments. I recommend that those who believe she is notable contribute to our article "Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy", and continue discussing notability on the discussion page of that article. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Fluke

[edit]
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)[reply]

Could whatever admin closes this also close WP:Articles for deletion/Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, where it is SNOWing? We really don't need two articles on this. Speciate (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE I have started a post at WP:ANI about the number of new accounts springing up to !vote here. I respectfully ask that no one close this until someone has had a chance to go through these !votes and strike the appropriate ones. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • !votes are not struck without proof of misdeeds, which is lacking. I've marked 11 comments as WP:SPA, someone marked at least one other. We should leave it to the closing admin to separate the wheat from the chaff. Besides, it doesn't matter what the vote tally is, this isn't a democracy, the decision will be based on the strength of the arguments, not the quantity. I'm staying out of this one, not !voting or offering an opinion. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) — Trevealed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 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) — 72.181.154.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Altered at 17:43, 6 March 2012 by 209.6.69.227, who had already added an unsigned "delete" comment here.[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]
  • Contrarian comment I think the number of hits a Wik article up for deletion has (as found in the history section)should be considered in the decision to keep/delete/move/re-name. We have to let Wik grow and morph some-what, to remain a meaningful tool. Kdammers (talk) 05:51, 8 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 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)[reply]
  • 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 WP:NOTSOAPBOX . 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) — 205.178.113.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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)— Daimb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]
  • 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. HangingCurveSwing 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. --McDoobAU93 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? --McDoobAU93 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. --McDoobAU93 22:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, what is the "second event"? --McDoobAU93 00:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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]

Break 1

[edit]
  • 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) — 174.75.106.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. --McDoobAU93 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.--McDoobAU93 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. --McDoobAU93 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]
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)[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]


this page was so well put together that it should stay and we need to think about what will happen in the future she has had several opportunities to speak with the press and possibly has a bright future in human rights issues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzM23Xrhrus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.106.40 (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — 69.107.106.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Break 2

[edit]
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)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like someone closed the discussion. [2] --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Delete, merge and redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, as suggested by WP:BLP1E. FurrySings (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete merge, and redirect to Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke Controversy. How is she "an important and newsworthy person" apart from her testimony before congress (and its consequences)? If this is the case, I am amazed she didn't *already* have a page *before* all of this. But she didn't. And she shouldn't now. No-brainer application of WP:BLP1E. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a proposal [3] 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Break 3

[edit]
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)[reply]
"Delete because it might get vandalized" is not typically a strong argument. Nathan T 22:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment: "Redirect" or "merge" also seem fine. "Keep" seems far-fetched at this point. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Wurzelbacher. Pretty similar circumstances. Nathan T 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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) — Falcon50c (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Response That would depend on what you mean by notability. The sections you direct to have nothing to do with this case, it is neither about crystal balls nor soapboxes. Fluke is the flashpoint of a national debate, she epitomises one side of a central controversy. It seems every single TV progam I saw last night mentioned her --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either I missed that or I have a short memory or both. Mildly curious, I took a look. Wikipedia (this, English-language one) turns out to have an article about it. This looks soberly done and useful, if long-winded. Indeed, French Wikipedia also has an article about it. ¶ Objection! So what if there's an article on the tasing? WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Ah, but the article was kept as the result of its AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Since we do not know whether or not she might in the future be heard from again, that is cause for delete until the furture sources show that she actually is something other than the focus of today's media circus. We dont "keep" on the basis that she might in the future. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the opposite of what BLP1E says. It doesn't say, we should delete articles unless the person is likely to continue to be high profile. It 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." If A AND B, then "avoid having an article". It's a high burden, to meet both of those two conditions, and failing to meet it, you don't delete. I'm still waiting for anybody to cite an actual source saying she is likely to be low-profile. Is a source too much to ask? Or do we just go with mere speculation? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I came to this page because I wanted to know more about Sandra Fluke and the controversy. When I searched Sandra Fluke in Google and saw an article under Wikipedia that is where I went because I knew I would get the story and nothing but the story ... and I did. This is a very beneficial service that Wikipedia provides and is what makes Wikipedia so great. So in the future, if I was reading about Rush Limbaugh on Wikipedia, and saw the text "Sandra Fluke controversy"; why wouldn't I want to be redirected to this page and get a full understanding of the controversy and Sandra Fluke which I can then use to better understand how talk show hosts destroy their careers? (User: todennisk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC). — Todennisk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete WP:BLP1E. Wknight94 talk 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment I mentioned earlier that this discussion should be suspended for a short time to see if anything more comes out of the issue. Someone brought up this particular part of the WP:BLP1E policy, "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." As the policy continues, significance is reflected in news coverage. Given the continuing coverage and extended fallout, it would appear that this policy has been satisfied. However, it may be better to simply merge the content here with that of Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, so I am not yet taking a stance. That article also has three discussions going for it, including its merger with this article and an AfD, so now is not a good time to merge. Tealwisp (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that is the case, can we remove the delete and merge banners from both Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy? We can then come back to this debate in a week or two, if that is needed.160.149.1.36 (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comparing Sandra Fluke to John Hinckley, Jr. seems a bit extreme, don't you think? Your "continuing coverage" is what, about 72 hours? Hinckley has been reported on more than 30 years after his 1E. Wknight94 talk 21:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • John Hinckley keeps getting brought up in this discussion because he is the sole example used in the discussion at WP:BLP1E. However, that policy section does not say that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about someone simply because that person's "single event" is less "important" than the shooting of a President of the United States. It's just one example. Maybe the example used in the policy should be, say, Jared Lee Loughner instead. And maybe Frank Eugene Corder as well. One thing that jumps out from all three of those examples is that the subjects of the articles really were involved in one event -- unlike Sandra Fluke, who was (and is) involved in a continuing controversy, which comprises several "events." Neutron (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it may be a close call, I think she has surpassed the "one-event" stage. It's a well sourced article. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She may become notable one day but today is not the day. She part of a border-line notable incident and has not transcended that incident.Racingstripes (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BLP1E if I ever saw one. This article really only has one section, and that is a narrative recounting her testimony. The Limbaugh controversy article already exists. Just redirect to there. ℱorƬheℒoveofℬacon ✉ • ✍ 23:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep While some users have reasonable delete arguments (others are of the WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT variety), I think the event is lasting long enough to be notable. The article provides necessary context for the biographical perspective on the issues. I think it is important that this article is kept. Eaghassi (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This appears to be a politically charged issue to delete. Baby Jessica is an excellent article to compare this with as far as criteria of an event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.214.130 (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — 99.62.214.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment (keep) Frankly I am concerned by some of the concrete thinking displayed in this and other discusions as to what should be kept. This seems to a particular problem in articles regarding women's issues. She clearly continues to attract attention and even President Obama considered her notable. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (keep) It may be of interest that User:HotArticlesBot shows Sandra Fluke leading the Hot Article league by a big lead. That has to count for something --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean, here (Feminism)? NB this is merely heat of editing. For what it's worth, this shows 8525 views on the first day (3 March) of its existence, rising uninterruptedly to 67408 views on the latest (6 March), for a total of 142500 views. But the degree to which the public is interested may of course be of little or no importance to Wikipedia. (I hope it's of not too great an importance: the articles I spend the most time improving generally have something like ten views per day.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article is titled and is about a now, like it or not, public figure: Sandra Fluke. Not an "event," or controversial topic. I had no idea Mrs. Fluke went to Cornell, was an activist by trade who'd worked for multiple groups, and who had tried to testify before Congress before the episode that led to Limbaugh's comment. Limbaugh is the "event" in her biography/career, as much as she is an event in his. Wikipedia is a source of free information; censoring a page about a now public figure is obviously a step in the wrong direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LianaElizabeth (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — LianaElizabeth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep Given the enormous debate from both sides of the house on the she is clearly notable both to those who think that this page should be deleted as well as those who feel it should be preserved. Besides, if the President of the United States of America thinks that she is notable enough to warrant a public phone call, who are we to doubt? Put another way, it seems clear that those who object to the existence of this page doth protest too much, methinks. Enquire (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page is the very embodiment of a WP:BLP1E. At most, a two-sentence bio should be merged into the "Limbaugh/Fluke controversy" page, assuming that page survives its own AfD. — NY-13021 (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
McCaffrey played Major League Baseball, which meant he passed WP:BASE/N for notability purposes. Unless there's a Wiki notability guideline that grants notability to people insulted by radio pundits, I don't see how my vote regarding McCaffrey's page is relevant here at all. — NY-13021 (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't. It's more delete-badgering. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, McCaffrey played one (1) match in Major League Baseball. You are of course right in saying that a guideline says that any MLB player is notable. I didn't notice the AfD at the time, but, if I had, wouldn't have !voted to delete. However, I shouldn't have thought that (i) being invited as the sole witness to a hearing (source), (ii) being picked up by a radio celeb and thereupon entering a "media circus" (as a delete-!voter reasonably called it above), (iii) being discussed thereafter without mention of the radio celeb (example, example) all amounted to a single event, let alone a single event of less (Wikipedia-variety) notability than being the player of a single MLB game. -- Hoary (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Arguments citing WP:BLP1E as a reason for deletion are arguing that Fluke is famous for a single event, but I think it's clear that she's spent about two weeks in the news cycle, which, in itself, is not a non-event. I would argue that as she is important for having been refused to join Issa's panel (with the Democratic walk-outs), for having spoken at a Democratic panel and then being referred to as a slut, followed by the significant mass media coverage of her wherein she has become a face to the contraceptive mandate story, makes her notable. The examples on WP:BLP1E page refer to people like the man who filmed Rodney King's beating as being not stand-alone worthy; I argue that Fluke is significantly more of an important figure than the examples listed on that page as guidelines. Yellowy 04:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The crux of the WP:BLP1E guideline really is "if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." I don't think anyone has any reason to believe she will be part of the news cycle again, outside of the umbrella of her testimony (or lack thereof) and its reverberations. If she does pop up again, then a separate article is completely justified. But until then, there is no need for there to be essentially two articles on her since Rush Limbaugh - Sandra Fluke controversy covers the same information. ℱorƬheℒoveofℬacon ✉ • ✍ 05:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic BLP1E. Hairsplitting about whether the hearings and aftermath are really one incident does not obviate the problem of a low-profile person, even if she had been involved in local activism, being scrutinized primarily because an entertainer said some nasty things about her. Lots of people have testified before congress, lots of people have been barred from testifying, lots of people have been insulted by Limbaugh. If this incident has lasting impact, and Fluke becomes a persistent public figure, we can always restore. (I will not be watching this page. If you have a response, ping me on my talk page.) Danger High voltage! 05:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As others have stated, Sandra Fluke was known before Limbaugh made his comments. There were several (at least national) headlines about the 'single female witness that was not allowed to testify about birth control'. Although her name was not given much at the time, that was Sandra Fluke the papers were referring to. For many people, particularly women and those involved in women's rights in the U.S., her being denied as a witness was by itself a notable event. Look up 'birth control female witness' in Google -- most of those articles would count as the first event. That would make Limbaugh (and Fluke's reaction to Limbaugh, the President's call, etc) the second event, thus WP:BLP1E should no longer be applicable. 76.89.80.23 (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — 76.89.80.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep Sandra Fluke had gained fame before Limbaugh made his comments. She was interviewed on international radio, Democracy Now and cable television multiple times. First it was about Daryl Issa banning her from testifying and then her testimony at the Democratic forum. And that was after some small media covered the Georgetown students' press conference at the National Press Club. As an avid news consumer, I knew who Fluke was a week before Limbaugh made his comments and everything completely exploded. Not only that, but I do expect she will be in the news again in the future. As a lot of conservative media is pointing out, she's actually a long-time activist and she will likely end up commentating on MSNBC and elsewhere on these issues. Seriously, if Figwit has his own page... well, a lot more people know the name Sandra Fluke than Figwit and she will be referred to for a long time. User:shadan7— shadan7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep I do not have time to pay attention to news in detail, so I was greatly helped by this Wikipedia article. I am mature enough to filter out portions of entries that are obviously politically based.User:feran —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
"Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus." (WP:AFD) --Bbb23 (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break 4

[edit]
  • Delete The personal biography clearly is a matter of BLP1E. The event may or may not be "notable" in the long run, but the "person" clearly is not notable. Dor whoever closes - note well the number of "!votes" found by pepple with no other edits, and the high likelihood that outside CANVASSing (like [17], [18] etc.) has occurred off-Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I disagree with the first half of your comment, Collect, I agree with the second. Moreover, other strange things have gone on above. Search within this AfD discussion for the word "altered" (as of now, there's only one instance), and read the sentence (by me) in which it appears. -- Hoary (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The allegedly non-notable Ms Fluke continues to be in the news every day - for what she represents. As expected, today March 8th, being International Women's Day she has become the poster girl for women's rights, and she also epitomises the problems the Republican Party is having in this year's election cycle. For that reason alone I think her name is going to continue to appear. This is way biggger than Mr Limbaugh's tirade - he merely shone a light on it.
It is interesting that a number of people think this is "clearly" a matter of WP:BLP1E. One thing that is evident is that it is far from clear. The sheer number of comments on this page, one way or another, makes this entry notable. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is also interesting how many apparent WP:SPAs appear here - it would be worth counting and tagging them. Many of them are written in an intolerant language reminiscent of the problematic monologue itself. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For those who cite article quality as the reason foe deletion - that's missing the point. That is not the criterion for keep/delete. That can and will be fixed - its the very nature of WP. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic example of WP:BLP1E Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the newspaper, and we don't need to pretend we're Wikinews. There's no evidence in this article that she passes WP:SCHOLAR; if you want to write an article about a scholar who just happens to be the same person, you'll have to do a complete rewrite, so we'd need to blow it up and start all over. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Strong Keep"" This is clear, unbiased coverage of an event that puts a fine point on the need to tone down political rhetoric in our country. It demonstrates how a news person can influence political discussion. Rather than expressing his opinion, his intention is to incite and divide. As citizens, we need to understand who is joining this divisive trend and who is standing up to defend reasoned discourse. Rcatherinecooper (talk)K. Cooper 6 March 2012 Added 14:13–14:15, 8 March 2012‎ — Rcatherinecooper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. This woman is not notable! She is a lobbyist that got media attention. She is a puppet for the left and Rush used the wrong wording but his point was that she basically wants free contraception. However nothing in life is free. She was unknown before this incident. AndrewrpTally-ho! 14:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is free, at least to you. PWNED!--Milowent • hasspoken 16:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If your accusations are true, then she is not a low-profile person, and that means WP:BLP1E does not apply. One of the unresolved disputes between the political right and the left about Sandra Fluke is whether she is an attention-seeking agent of the Democrats, or if she is, as President Obama described her, "a private citizen". If the closing admin declares that she is a private citizen to apply BLP1E, that requires violating NPOV. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Under no circumstances should this be a red link. Period. Too many people are coming here to find the information on this subject. We can trumpet WP:NOTNEWS all we want, which is fine in theory, but in practice, people DO come here for up to date information on this subjects like this, and it is our duty to provide it in an encyclopedic matter. That said, the form is important. I agree with the spirit of WP:BLP1E on this, that (at least at this time), an individual article is not something we should have. A merge into an appropriate article is certainly warranted. The decision of what article to merge to, and what to merge, should be left to the editors working on the article, and not done under the Damocles' Sword of an AFD discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She's notable, even excluding the Limbaugh controversy, based on press coverage. Everyking (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Bwrs (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (same person that posted a Strong Keep above (also as an IP - have no Wikipedia account)). The problem with merging into an article about the Limbaugh controversy is that it ignores the events that Sandra Fluke was involved in before Limbaugh - especially her inability to be a witness at an all male panel on birth control. As said above, that event was very notable to those following women's rights in the U.S., which is not an insignificantly sized group. That was before Limbaugh said a word. Making the events Sandra Fluke has been involved in only notable for Limbaugh's reaction frankly reeks of the same bias that the women's rights groups are trying to fight against. 76.89.80.23 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)— 76.89.80.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Delete Ms. Fluke is "notable" only as the target of some childish name calling by a high profile radio broadcaster. She has accomplished nothing in her career that would warrant an encyclopedia article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Same person as IP post just above) Not "notable" to whom? You, personally? As written by several others, Fluke was the subject of many news articles, especially in activist groups, before Limbaugh made any comments. This is not opinion, it is fact. A few minutes of research would show it to be true. 76.89.80.23 (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)— 76.89.80.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - is there some procedural difference in weighting between strong delete and delete, or strong keep and keep? I've been participating in deletion discussions for several years and wasn't aware of the difference. Kelly hi! 01:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly, I think it's all just opinion, a "Delete" and "Strong Delete" really don't make a difference to the closing admin. Wildthing61476 (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A strong delete (or strong keep) is one made by an editor who goes to the gym at least 5 times a week. Although you don't ask, a snow delete (or snow keep) is one made by an editor who lives in a country near the North Pole.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Pee Wee Herman - that was so funny that I forgot to laugh. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notable for what? A notable what? Youreallycan 05:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She is an activist on an important public issue, and her activism (and the response thereto) has attracted substantial public attention. Neutron (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is ridiculous to say we would delete something due to be notable for only one event, when many people (assassins, scientists, are only notable for one hit or one invention; really is Gavrilo Princip notable for more than starting World War I?). Sometimes just one event is sufficient. Plus, it is absurd to say news is not encyclopedic material. Anything covered in widespread TV and print and online news services, i.e. in secondary sources, is worthy of coverage in the ultimate encyclopedia as well. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "ridiculous". It is Wikipedia policy. See WP:BLP1E. What you are arguing is the exact opposite of Wikipedia's well-established guidelines. Ithizar (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the opposite of what BLP1E says. The oft-cited example of an assassin, Hinckley, comes straight from the text of BLP1E. "Sometimes just one event is sufficient" is what the policy says. The extra burden of BLP1E, over and above WP:1E, is that for living people you must show that they are low-profile. Considering the volumes of reliable sources that show Sandra Fluke has "voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities", its astounding how many editors think BLP1E justifies deletion. The only explanation I have for that is that BLP1E is poorly written and widely misunderstood. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
responsing when the hordes of media swarm your door asking "what do you think about a big windbag calling you a slut?" can hardly be considered "voluntarily participating". -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors have been telling jokes in this discussion. Is ignoring all the things that Fluke did as an activist promoting her cause an attempt at humor? Fluke wanted to testify before the Republican committee, and wanted to testify before the Democratic hearing. After the Limbaugh controversy, Fluke chose to be present at numerous media interviews. They did not beat down her door, either before or after the Rush Limbaugh attacks. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These discussions are not votes. None-the-less, I think it is useful to note that when Keeps and Deletes are tallied, I count 60 Keeps and 54 Deletes. However, when you discard all of the votes made by accounts who are designated as having little or no edits beyond this topic, the count is 43 Keeps and 47 Deletes. I think both counts help establish that there is no real consensus being formed on this issue with the community being fairly evenly divided. However, it also seems obvious that people from outside the Wikipedia community are being directed here with the sole intent of influencing the outcome of this discussion in favor of keeping the article -- 17 such "votes" have been registered -- and I think that should be weighed when looking at the discussion as well. Ithizar (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response As you point out, this is not a strict yay-versus-nay vote, but all input is not equal: the strength of arguments is what is germane, so if (e.g.) the delete !votes are of the sort "this should be deleted because of X policy" and the keep !votes are of the sort "this article is an important emblem of my social crusade" then the latter are all irrelevant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out that most of the regulars, at least the names I recognize, are nearly unanimous in suggesting a merge or delete. The vast majority of the keeps are well intentioned but naive about Wikipedia policy (and the fact there's a separate article about the only reason she's in the news)... I trust the closing admin will similarly notice this. Shadowjams (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Part of the problem is that it comes down to a subjective judgment and the policies don't give one a really objective measure, at least as written. The policy basically says, if a person is only notable by one event, then it will be deleted. Then it goes on to say, but that won’t happen if the one event is so notable that the person is notable simply because of the event. How do you judge this? Persistence of media coverage, of course.
Then the problem is on rather it is one event or multiple events. Is her denial of testimony, statement to democratic house members and then the Limbaugh controversy one event? Or is it multiple events? How do you judge? You make your own subjective judgment.
If the policy standards are this subjective, then one can’t be surprised that there is debate. If one is going to one is going to state that notability is judged by persistence of news coverage, then one needs to develop objective standards. How many sources and for how long make a person notable?
On the whole new editor thing, I created the article because I searched for it and it wasn't there. I would assume that is how many new editors get involved in wikipedia. The quality of the arguements should be taken into consideration, not rather they are new or not. Casprings (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hinckley is still getting three pages of google news hits from the past 4 weeks [19] There are clearly notable one events. And then there is FARK. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandra_Fluke&oldid=1151024542"