Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fluke (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. The redirect arguments are the strongest of the bunch: saying that someone introduced another person is not in-depth coverage, and much of the coverage is nothing but passing mentions. Information on Fluke's 2012 activies could be merged to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, as suggested by Zaldax, but that can be done from the history of this article.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Fluke

edit
AfDs for this article:
Sandra Fluke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
Deletion Review for this Article
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After having considered various questions for some length of time, I have come to believe that this article should be once more nominated for deletion. Many of the arguments that initially resulted in its deletion still hold true: at it's core, this article is a classic representation of WP:BLP1E. While some might argue that the subject surpasses notability requirements for this one event, the comparisons given at the BLP1E listing are individuals such as an attempted presidential assassin, not the centerpiece of a relatively short-lived media scandal. Furthermore, the relevant portions of this article are near identical to that of Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy; making this article dangerously close to a WP:POVFORK.

A Google search for the subject, limited to results on in the last month, reveals mostly "where are they now"-type stories, with a few exceptions. The vast majority of those exceptions are either "Sandra Fluke tweets in defense of Palin," or "Sandra Fluke endorses President Obama." Neither of those are really "news"; would anyone have cared about her endorsement if there had been no scandal? Certainly not! It's an election year, and that means that her importance is momentarily magnified; however, until the opposing side of the campaign comments on her role, she won't be a Joe the Plumber. Whenever she's mentioned, it's still always preceded with a reference to the scandal; until that can be dropped, she doesn't need her own, separate article. Remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper; actions like publishing an opinion piece or endorsing the president does not add anything significant to her biography, and makes it no more worthy of being included in Wikipedia on its own.

There is one exception that I'm sure proponents of keeping this article will bring up, and that is that she has written a handful of opinion articles for various news organizations recently. That, however, does not meet notability requirements on its own. There are many news contributors who have articles published far more often than her without WP articles of their own. The bottom line is, aside from the earlier scandal Fluke has done nothing notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, and she hasn't done anything notable enough since; as everything relevant to the scandal is already covered in a separate article, I hereby propose that the Wikipedia biography on Sandra Fluke be deleted - not only as redundant, but as non-notable, too. Zaldax (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- WP:BLP1E should not apply. To quote "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.". While she has not stayed in the full spotlight, Ms. Fluke has done enough that she has not faded into obscurity. Her notability mgiht have STARTED thanks to Rush Limbaugh, but has expanded to the point where it is no longer JUST what Limbaugh started. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have repeatedly and patiently asked anyone who holds that view to elucidate with significant article additions that do NOT relate to the Limbaugh/Democrat walk out. None have been.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the controversy, all that the article mentions is her endorsement of President Obama. Her momentary reappearance in the news is virtually entirely due to that event, which in-and-of-itself does not confer notability. As she can only endorse a candidate once, this still seems a classic BLP1E to me. Zaldax (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a public figure, as THIS ANN COULTER RANT gives evidence. 715K Google hits for the distinctive name. Whether Fluke became famous for one event is neither here nor there; Fluke remains a public figure beyond that initial public emergence and is therefore a fully valid subject for encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, I'm not sure that Ann Coulter is a reliable source. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Double UUmmmm. The Coulter rant was within weeks of the Limbaugh controversy, and the column (is an opinion, so not WP:RS for inclusion of factual content) specifically refers to the fact that she believes the column is probably too LATE, since the controversy was over and fading. Plus, does not breach WP:ONEVENT, since the column WAS about the one event--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just making the point that this is a public figure beyond a single news event, not citing sources towards GNG — which I consider already well met. Carrite (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still can't understand your point; you SAY she has become notable post-RL, and independent of RL-SF but can only cite a column that was written close to the RL-SF Controversy, and concerns the RL-SF Controversy. arguing EVENT not PERSON. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There continues to be both converage of her and she continues to be contribute to the public discorse. She has published on CNN as a "special contributor” and this adds to the argument that she is still in the media and notable. A Google news search will reveal many national outlets that still have coverage of her.[1] [2][3][4]
  1. ^ Davis, Laura E. "Sandra Fluke endorses Obama". ABC News. Retrieved 3 August 2012.
  2. ^ Bergstrom, William. "Sandra Fluke returns favor, endorses Obama". Politico. Retrieved 3 August 2012.
  3. ^ "Honest Or Sexist? Russell Brand Slammed For Sarah Palin Comments". Global Grind. Retrieved 3 August 2012.
  4. ^ Fluke, Sandra. "Sandra Fluke: The fight for Obamacare isn't over yet". MSNBC. Retrieved 30 June 2012.
The time and amount of national coverages is enough for an article on her. Moreover, there is coverage on more then simply one event. Her endorcement of the President and various comments have been picked up by national media. Moreover, she has now written articles for national media. All of this adds up and the article should stay.Casprings (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there had been "More" significant events or activities, then over the course of the month that editors gave for you (Casprings is a veritable WP:SPA on all things Fluke) were asking for "what?", you should have added them. Several editors, myself included, argued that while there did not seem to be anything that would argue that the Deletion was not correct, it would be fair to let pro-Fluke editors make the case on the Article page by making NEW additions. Instead, there has been edit-warring to RE-DO old issues that have strong prior consensus that a minority just didn't like, re-arguing of settled factual issues, and general unproductive editing. An opportunity to make the case through adding new post-Limbaugh material has been given with the Deletion review, and nothing of significance has been added. Case made.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Collect and others. As with countless other BLP1E cases, she may get name-dropped in the news on occasion, but the only reason is because of the original event, i.e. she has done nothing event-worthy since then. Being quoted about who one is endorsing is not an event. A "where are they now?" story is not an event. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - For some history, the article was the source of a long-running AfD that ended in delete. Then after deletion review recreation was allowed, although the deletion decision wasn't overturned (whatever doublespeak that means) and the page was [by Hoary], who had argued in the DRV for recreation.
    Her notability stems entirely from the Rush Limbaugh issue. Remove that piece of the puzzle and this wouldn't pass BLP1E. Testifying before congress doesn't make one notable, nor does writing a few pieces for CNN. Similarly the work she's doesn't appear to satisfy WP:N itself. I think the earlier AfD was correct. Shadowjams (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction; She didn't even testify before Congress; she delivered a speech at a Congressional Democrat's event.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for coverage from a mainstream source that's based on something independent of the Rush Limbaugh thing, that covers it in a notable way, which is to say more than just a mention that she works at X or something like that. Shadowjams (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my problem is that WP:N is the rational behind any article. I understand WP:N#TEMP and that is a good reason for BLP1E. But crap, how much more coverage and for how long do you have to see it before you say that she is WP:N. WP:N shouldn't be subjective. It should be based on reliable sources covering here. I think we bring opinion into it when we say, "They only covered here for this reason" The fact is, she is getting coverage and continues to get coverage (and coverage from mainstream sources). How much more do you need to see before she is WP:N.Casprings (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, WP:N is the basis for every AfD ever considered in the history of WP. Simply adding the WP word, without an argument does not help the case.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect, subject appears to fall under WP:BLP1E. Although there are multiple mentions of the subject, the subject appears to be primarily notable regarding events that are the primary subject of the sub-article Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy and events surrounding that subject. Although the subject writes for the Huffington Post, she does not yet appear to warrant notability per WP:AUTHOR. Now if the subject is found to be independently notable regarding events not associated with the sub-article Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy, the article can be recreated; additionally if the sub-article that was previously mentioned meets the requirements set forth in WP:TOOLONG it can be spun out as a sub-article of that sub-article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BLP1E applies without doubt. Not actually notable even for DOING something of any value in the ONE event. Used as a prop by Congressional Democrats, did NOT testify. They could have picked a random person off the street just as well, she happened to be there and of the correct gender. Gave a very bad and uninformative speech at an event Congressional Democrats set up, which was widely panned, only kept in the news because Limbaugh "worked blue" and was justifiably condemned by all for doing so. If Wikipedia is going to start giving articles to every person who was ever called a name by someone, we will have to make room for whole CLASSES of elementary school kids. Notable in a Controversy or Limbaugh article because of WHO called her a name. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a reminder, this article was allowed by Deletion review on June 21st. Link is here , Casprings (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted for cause, very clear, for non-notability, at height of the Limbaugh controversy, and with 20pages of comments. 3 months later, without notifying interested parties, and while the only talk of Fluke on WP was the necessity of trimming entries, since the whole flap seemed less and less relevant, Deletion review snuck through, total of 7 votes. Review explicitly stated the original Deletion was justified due to WP:ONEEVENT . 2nd AfD was mistakenly filed by Casprings, closed on procedural grounds without commentary. Seemingly entire justification for NOT deleting is Google hits, which is EXPLICITLY covered in WP guidelines.

    Invalid criteria...Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online. The adult film industry, for example, uses Googlebombing to influence rankings, and for most topics search engines cannot easily differentiate between useful references and mere text matches. See also limitations of Alexa. When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the world do you get this google hits argument as the "sole" reason for not deleting? I think the rational for bring it back was that she continues to be reported on by reliable and noteworthy sources, thus meeting WP:N. Casprings (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IP sums it up nicely. And even if we put aside the issues with that DRV and the whole second bite at the apple, that recreation was allowed is not the same as endorsing the article. It's not a valid reason to keep at an afd. Shadowjams (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. No one is arguing that. That said, month of news coverage on her would be the major reason to have the article. It meets WP:N, in my opinion. Casprings (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tally 8-3 consensus to Delete/redirect Delete/Redirect

Zaldax
EEng
Collect
Tarc
Shadowjams
RightCowLeftCoast
209.6.69.227
Sgt. R.K. Blue

Keep

Umbralcorax
Carrite [?]
Casprings

--209.6.69.227 (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out the "Tally" above as a reminder that counting heads (or whatever it is we have here in cyberspace) is not an appropriate way to evaluate a discussion's outcome. EEng (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely fair, but would add that based on ARGUMENT, the "tally" is more lop-sided. The repetitive "It meets WP:N, in my opinion." or "I base this on WP:N" of the Keep editor is not an argument. (ALL AfDs are based on WP:N, and a blank "Keep" vote already says the editor is asserting WP:N. An argument is saying HOW and WHY WP:N applies, which has not been done on this page nor the article, yet)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Condescendingly calling editors' reasoned arguments !Votes can be considered WP:PA. Just sayin'--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a very silly comment. The fact that AfD discussions are meant to be arguments rather than votes is precisely why we use the not operator. While I can't say that no comments here are votes - eg. a certain user's comment which was primarily about his or her personal dislike for the subject rather than any WP policies - to call standard WP language a personal attack because you think it means exactly the opposite of what it means is foolish. Next time you want to be snippy because you disagree with someone, do it right. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, George Harrison is dead.... Zaldax (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the point. The PERSISTENCE guideline doesn't require that people keep doing things in order to be notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true, but the guideline doesn't exist in a vacuum. 1) Sandra Fluke is still alive, so she could still be doing notable things, and 2) George Harrison by no means fails WP:ONEEVENT. Although when he first started out he probably did fail WP:BAND. Zaldax (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERSISTENCE is a notability guide for EVENTS, not people. As with the George Harrison analogy, he is a person of great accomplishment and influence in his day, therefore WP:N. He has not "persisted", as he is dead, but it would not matter if no Newspaper had an article on George Harrison for a month, he would remain notable. The ABA panel was on the Limbaugh incivility, the EVENT, which you are arguing by WP:PERSISTENCE, is still notable. That Fluke was invited was because of the EVENT, and the panel was on the EVENT. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding Fluke's coverage vs. her activities, I would like to point out that we live in the era of the 24-hour news cycle; media organizations routinely publish whatever they can, as soon as they can, in order to fill the gaps between real stories and events. Sandra Fluke's ongoing coverage is a classic case of this, as I mentioned in my opening argument.
Those who are arguing that Fluke's coverage is ongoing are correct; no one is arguing that media organizations have not printed stories about her after the Limbaugh flap died down. However, what editors are arguing is that upon closer examination each-and-every one of the news stories provided fails the "24-hour news cycle test." Simply put, they're all filler. "Sandra Fluke endorses the President" is not an event worthy of a Wikipedia article; nearly everyone endorses a candidate these days. "Sandra Fluke tweets in defense of Palin" is not an event worthy of a Wikipedia article; Twitter may be the media's social-media-of-the-week, but a single tweet does not notability make. "Where are they now: Sandra Fluke" is clearly not an event, but is indisputably filler. Sandra Fluke writes a couple of opinion columns is not an event; not only is it a primary source, but it's a novelty aimed to attract interest at best (and also fails WP:Author. A panel about Fluke at the ABA's annual conference is also not an event: how many other panels did they have, and how many of those have Wikipedia articles?
Furthermore, almost each-and-every-one of those stories includes a reference to the Limbaugh scandal in explaining who she is. If the news media still identifies her based on one event, then she clearly fails WP:ONEEVENT
One last thing: if you examine the dates of every single story cited as evidence that Fluke has constant coverage since the scandal, you'll notice that, after the scandal died down, further stories come in spikes; each spike surrounds one of the examples related above. This is, by definition, not persistent. (Taken from that link: a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Also, I object to Roscelese's statement that it is her coverage, rather than activities, that decide whether she is worthy of an article. Even if the media were to publish a narrative of each day of her life every day for the next twenty years, if all she did was publish the occasional op-ed and make a few public appearances I would still argue against notability. "Deeds, not words" -- until she does something notable, she is by definition not notable.
So, to those who argue that Fluke is notable, I challenge you thusly: Instead of simply stating that she has continued coverage (the notability of which remains highly contested), tell us why she is notable. Disregard the Limbaugh flap for the time being -- a merger and redirect would adequately cover that -- and instead argue why she is notable on her own. I, for one, do not know of any subsequent events that pass WP:ONEEVENT on their own merit that would justify a unique article. Zaldax (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deeds are always subjective. Is "endorsing Obama a "deed". Is a story for CNN a "deed". I would suggest that the number of news stories not related to Rush is enough to meet the WP:N standard. That is the fundamental policy that this must be held up to and I don't see any objective measure where she doesn't meet the WP:N standard. She has had enough persistent news coverage on various activities that she has done. 66.136.146.32 (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[NOTE: this is the only WP contribution of this IP editor][reply]
To answer your rhetorical questions, "No", and "No", respectively. As has been said many times before by numerous editors on this discussion page, neither of those are notable events in their own right. Anyone off the street can endorse a presidential candidate; Fluke only garnered a relatively small amount of 24-hour news cycle attention for her endorsement because of her connection to the Limbaugh Scandal. In an election year, CNN publishes an Op-Ed from her because of her connection to the Limbaugh Scandal. Until Fluke does something unrelated to that one event, she will continue to fail WP:ONEEVENT. Again, there are plenty of contributors without WP articles, because they fail WP:AUTHOR, as does Fluke. Objectivity and Subjectivity have nothing to do with it; the fact is, everything she has done since the Limbaugh scandal merits a sentence or two at most, and that does not a separate biography make. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm happy that you liked my argument, but it's a bit strange for me to see most of it being used word for word. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of an event is what we want; at best, this is now 3 sentences more worth of information than the Limbaugh scandal article. It is no surprise that she is campaigning for Obama; she's already endorsed him, as have other figures both notable and non-notable. That alone still does not justify an additional article, especially when most people who search her name are likely looking for the article about the controversy. In summary, it isn't the quantity of coverage (which is, again, quite small, and comes in spikes), but the quality of the coverage that matters. Fluke has neither. Zaldax (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the standard of quality? It seems highly subjective when one continues to have reliable sources that have a nationwide audience. Casprings (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is not notable, events that involve her are notable. Thus this page is not a valid contribution and should me merged with the pages that chronicle the pertinent events.Theseus1776 (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Below are national news sources that covered her campaigning with the President. All sources reported on her in the last 24 hours:
The Hill: Sandra Fluke will campaign with Obama in Colo. on Wednesday
Politico: Sandra Fluke to campaign with Obama in Denver
New York Daily News: Sandra Fluke, Called A 'Slut' By Rush Limbaugh, To Introduce Obama At Denver Rally
Fox News: Sandra Fluke to Campaign with President Obama
Sandra Fluke To Introduce Obama In Denver
Denver Post:Sandra Fluke to introduce Obama in Denver
Thanks to Rush, Sandra Fluke Is Now an Actual Obama Campaign Operative
On what objective world does news coverage of her enforcement, her writing articles for CNN and Huff Post, and coverage of her on the Campaign trail fall under one event? Hell, I would even argue that it is hard to see the hearing before the controversy with Issa as part of the same event. Casprings (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fluke's recent campaigning with President Obama, a result of her previous endorsement of the President earlier last month, does not constitute a notable event in its own right, but rather a continuation of a different, indisputably notable event: the U.S. 2012 Presidential Campaign. Sandra Fluke is a participant in the event, and her participation centers around her sole point of notability; that she was insulted by Rush Limbaugh after speaking at a Congressional event.
Objectively, one can view all of Fluke's actions since her appearance at the aforementioned Congressional event as a continuation of the Limbaugh scandal, for her role in present events has entirely stemmed from, and directly referenced, the earlier controversy. The Obama campaign may or may not decide to involve Ms. Fluke to a greater degree in their campaign, and possibly in any future Obama administration. In the event of the former, Ms. Fluke may meet notability guidelines if the Romney campaign decides to comment, à la Joe the Plumber. That's fine; I would in that instance support re-creation once more, and would personally monitor the article to ensure objectivity and neutrality on both sides. In the event of the latter, Ms. Fluke would undeniably meet notability guidelines as a public figure involved on a day-to-day basis in government. That's fine; I would in that instance support re-creation once more, and would personally monitor the article to ensure objectivity and neutrality on both sides.
What, then, do both of my above scenarios have in common that would cause me, the nominator, to switch my future support from "delete" to "keep"? Simple, really; Fluke would undeniably and indisputably meet the notability requirement for an individual biography currently not satisfied under WP:BLP1E. At present, her sole role in ongoing events, i.e. publishing the occasional opinion piece, a "surprising" tweet, and endorsing/campaigning with the President, can be entirely traced back to the Limbaugh scandal, as observed by the constant stream of references to it in nearly every story about her subsequent actions. When the majority of news organizations feel that they can mention her without any mention of the Limbaugh scandal, she will obviously no longer be noteworthy by virtue of one event. Furthermore, if one is to examine the issue objectively than it is necessary to take into account the fact that 2012 is an election year; each and every otherwise minor political event will be greatly magnified in importance as a result of today's 24-hour news cycle. We cannot allow ourselves to fall prey to recentism in articles; keep in mind the Ten Year Test. Fluke's campaign appearances may seem notable now, but in all likelihood they will merely be a footnote by next January. Of course, I could be wrong; I'm not a crystal ball, after all. Then again, neither is Wikipedia. Zaldax (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Joe the Plumber analogy doesn't really work. Yes, he asked a question that the news pros were unable to, but then was made notable as a shorthand by both parties for how policies would affect working class and entrepreneur Americans. He was pervasive throughout the campaign, and the "event" you would have to substitute would be something along the lines of "2008 Presidential Election theme - Joe the Plumber", much easier and more direct to go for an Person Article. There is no question Joe was acting on his own, he took initiative, and had substantive influence on a major campaign out of proportion to the originality of the initial event; therefore a Person Article. Fluke was a prop in the political theater around the Issa hearing, a prop in a Democrat event, delivering a scrubbed and insubstantial speech. She got media notice by claiming "victimhood" when commentators and pols condemned the political theater. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's what I'm saying. Fluke's campaign appearances would be notable if Romney started using her as shorthand for an issue, but he isn't. Furthermore, as you pointed out, "Joe the Plumber" has done quite a bit since his initial appearance in the public eye; he's even running for Congress now. Fluke, on the other hand? Not so much... Zaldax (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thus far, the campaign appearances basically try to remind people that Limbaugh crossed a line.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Condescendingly calling a reasoned comment a !vote can be considered WP:PA . Please cease; it adds nothing to the debate. Calling critics names also does not advance your cause.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, please don't make me go through that list and refute those examples one at a time. Don't you think you're comparing apples to oranges just a little bit there? Let's concentrate on Ms. Fluke, please, and not bring in any outside, clearly notable public figures and/or entertainers. (Although admittedly, you may be onto something with that category there; perhaps someone should take a look at that? And by the way, I agree that some of those people probably shouldn't be notable, but alas the public and media has judged that they are. I'm looking at you, Kardashian.) Oh, and I don't think allegations of sexism are appropriate here - Ms. Fluke has not caused massive protests in the Muslim world, whereas Mr. Jones has. So, everyone, let's keep this focused on Ms. Fluke, and avoid political bias on our own, shall we? Zaldax (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's [...] not bring in any outside, clearly notable public figures and/or entertainers. No, let's instead start by agreeing on one or both of two other, related matters. One is of what "notability" means. The guidelines do indeed mention what might be called noteworthiness or intrinsic notability, but they heavily favor notedness (however bizarre you or I may find media obsession). The other is the nature of these pages on notability (whatever "notability" may mean): they're guidelines, not policies, thereby allowing for sensible exceptions. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that other "crap" exists is specifically excluded as an argument under WP:OTHERCRAP. Policy is that if you don't think those OTHER Articles should be on WP, nominate them.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are half right. For any dubious article at AfD, people are likely to be able to fish two or three similar, underexamined articles from WP's stagnant waters. And therefore the fact that (such) other crap exists is indeed no reason for retention, and rightly so. But my examples aren't just one or two, and they're not articles that have somehow gone unnoticed. They are, for the most part, well known articles on people whose notedness depends on their family trees, looks, etc, and not on what Zaldax and you seem to think is important: meaningful accomplishments resulting from personal effort rather than serendipity (e.g. the pratfalls of others). These articles aren't occasional; they're legion. My list above has a US and of course female slant; but there are also dozens, perhaps hundreds, on people such as Simon Bowes-Lyon, Lord Glamis who appear to have zero notability (as defined other than very perversely), and redlinks (see for example the foot of that last article) inviting the addition of ten times this number. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate those for deletion too, then. This AFD is about this article. Not any other, especially none previously mentioned, because none of those were direct analogues. (Hence what I said about "apples to oranges".) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:OTHERCRAP does not change just because of the quantity of WP:OTHERCRAP. WP:OTHERCRAP is still WP:OTHERCRAP.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So are you arguing that this article should be deleted as a WP:POVFORK? AFD is not just a vote; you need to support your position with an argument based on WP policy and guidelines if you want your voice to be heard. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If that will work. The Man Who Would B.B. King (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's now a public figure. She's written articles for CNN and just introduced Obama at a campaign event. The Rush Limbaugh event may have brought her into the spotlight, but she's there now, and there's no shortage of new articles in which she's a part of. This seems about on the same par as Joe The Plumber. I tend to lean conservative, but it's pretty clear to me she deserves her own article. Given that she's now bigger than the event that put her in the spotlight, I would argue that the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy should instead redirect to her page to the specific section covering this incident. Naapple (Talk) 02:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that Joe the Plumber is running for Congress, right? That he was literally mentioned almost daily by both sides of the campaign during the last election, right? I think it's ludicrous to say that Fluke is bigger than the original event; if you ask the average person, they will almost certainly tell you she's the Limbaugh scandal girl, nothing else (if they even remember her at all.) Sorry if it seems like I'm being harsh, but I'm getting frustrated hearing "She's notable because she introduced Obama" and "Look at all my links!" without any actual defense of why that matters being invoked. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don't have a dog in this fight either way. I just saw the tag when I googled her name and figured I'd throw in my $0.02.
Joe the Plumber only ran for congress recently, and I'm sure he had a page long before then. John Hinckley, Jr. I'm sure is only casually mentioned as the guy who shot Reagan.
You should take a chill-pill, dude. You've jumped on everyone with an opposing opinion. Just remember, they're just that: opinions, and yours isn't necessarily the right one. Don't be a dick. Naapple (Talk) 02:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that characterizing me as a dick is just a little bit unfair, given the circumstances, dude. Throughout this discussion I've continually reminded everyone to take a step back and to take politics out of it. Thus fair I've patiently explained and laid out the points to my argument, each time an opinion I disagree with has been posted, in accordance with [Hierarchy of Disagreement.] So far, it's been an attempt to build consensus, but the source of my frustration stems from frequent repetition of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Naapple, the dude isn't a dick; this is just an AfD, that's all: some participants get terribly excited. Plus ... well, be easy on him: over a month ago he wrote that The 15 minutes of controversy that made [Fluke] slightly recognizable has long since faded. It's truly mind boggling. If his mind has been boggling since, he must be quite exhausted. -- Hoary (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I didn't write that; Xcal68 did over a month before I even registered. I'm assuming that's an honest mistake on your part. Zaldax (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well well, you're right; you are two different people. I was confused. Both of you have al and x in your names. Your editing history is indeed very short. You're a fast learner: my congratulations. -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As said above, she's now a public figure. If she had a single public event in her life -- 15 minutes of fame -- and gone back into the shadows, I'd feel ok about reporting on her only in the context of that event, but she has continuing coverage in the news. That's called being a celebrity. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted previously, her "continuing coverage" not only comes in spikes (i.e. it's not really constant), but is in relation to events much, much larger than herself; in today's 24-hour news cycle anything is grounds for a story during election season. I point to the Ten Year Test as further grounds for deletion (or merge/redirect, which would be quite similar seeing as how the present article contains only 3 sentences more of information beyond a basic biography...) Zaldax (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One reason why the article contains little is, as its history will show, the vigor with which additions are opposed and removed. -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The primary reason it is as puffed up as it is the debate switched to AfD. The notable difference between SF and RL-SF are the poor self-sourced references.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still-numbers, isn't your comment, no matter how well intended, a little unkind to SF? I'd always thought that a celeb was somebody whose fame, such as it was, primarily derived from being famous (examples). -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The WP:BLP1E argument seems weak to me. I don't think anyone would seriously propose deleting Chesley Sullenberger, who would presumably have remained obscure but for one event. The reason I proposed a merge earlier is not because of any questions of notability, but simply because the two articles in question cover practically the same ground. — Richwales 05:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sully is actually a good example. You could make a case that it was the event, but a weak one. It was the coolness under pressure/heroism/skill and experience that made what was a minor event something that grabbed attention, therefore article on person, not event. WP:N is somewhat borderline, but since the person is non-contentious and of accomplishment, OK. Fluke was a passive prop put forward in an artificially manufactured set of media events. News notices mostly are election year attempts to remind people of the set of media events. Arguments being put forward are mostly arguments that the EVENT page should remain.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion, on the basis of clear lack of independent notability. It'd be an exercise in futility to try and scare up instances of Ms Fluke's notability independently of the Rush Limbaugh episode. I tried - and it was futile. Please, let us set aside the politics of this and proceed according to Wiki rules on both notability and BLPs. -The Gnome (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, because Fluke has zero notability without Limbaugh's manufactured controversy. No independent article is justified. Belchfire-TALK 06:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy because she is notable for only 1 event. Remove that single event and there is nothing left.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 09:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is someone making public statements on record, so BLP1E wouldn't seem to apply. Just yesterday, seen here, BOULDER, Colo. - It's certainly no fluke that President Obama is being introduced by Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke when he makes a campaign stop in Denver on Wednesday. This was reported nationally including USA Today. Which also makes it well beyond a single event. So at one time there may have been a point that this was just a recent thing or too focussed on one event, that incident has been parlayed into a burgeoning political career bolstered by Rush Limbaugh's poor choices. Has Limbaugh never gone down that road she may have never been built the platform, but he did and now she's being used be the most powerful man on the planet. here is a story from the American Bar Association explaining her rise to being her own entity - "...the aspiring lawyer has embraced the platform. Fresh from the California bar exam, the Georgetown University Law Center alum said the experience gave her the chance to think more deeply about political conversation and a lawyer’s role in that arena." So she may have never intended all the free publicity after the personal attacks but she is taking advantage of the opportunities to address a national audience and getting her opinions repeated because of her newfound fame. Insomesia (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case you need to add "notable for speaking" to the notability guidelines. IIRC, just because a person speaks a lot does not make them "notable" per WP guidelines - so I suggest you propose that addition. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if you intended to be sarcastic but no, I'm not suggesting a change to notability policy. I am stating that her opinions and speaking are reported by the media as notable enough to report. They think her opinions are notable. Insomesia (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI; an univited op-ed is OPINION, and not considered WP:RS, even if in the WaPo.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your talking about, please don't invent things that I never even suggested. Insomesia (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your references. Check them out; assertions about Fluke are uninvited op-eds. One level above letters to the editor. Not WP:RS, which is what we should be talking about. Sorry if I wasn't clear.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for self-confessed dittoheads (there must be some of you here!): What Would Limbaugh Do? Politico tells us that he's told his fans: “Obama’s out there today, he’s at a fundraiser, and guess who is introducing him? Well-known contraception expert Sandra Fluke [...] When you mention her name, my name is what most people think of,” he continued, according to audio posted by The Daily Rushbo. “I should be getting a finder’s fee.” So Limbaugh takes SF as a "well-known contraception expert", and thus presumably article-worthy. But, contraceptive expertise notwithstanding, he suggests that she's primarily an amusement provided by himself, and thus I suppose redirectable. I'm puzzled; pray enlighten me. (Try not to splutter too much.) Beers. Hoary (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, Hoary. This issue is contentious enough, it'll only be harder to sort out if we stoop to the level Rush did when he started this whole thing. Firstly, I think the air quotes there, were probably pretty clear - Limbaugh was almost certainly being sarcastic; given his record of involvement with Fluke, I'd hardly call him a reliable source. Secondly, no one is proposing that we redirect Sandra Fluke to Rush Limbaugh; you're absolutely right in that such a redirect would be ridiculous. No, what myself and many other editors are proposing is to merge/redirect the article Sandra Fluke to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy (arguably still the thing most people are searching for), and then to delete the Fluke biography as redundant. Zaldax (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Possible Compromise: Since it appears that the majority of editors thus far are in favor of a redirect/merge (I'm including delete's here, because it's practically the same thing), but a significant minority argue "keep" on the basis of ongoing events, I may have come up with a compromise that's suitable to all. As we all know, this article has been thus far subject to two previous AFDs and one DRV. In the event of a pure "delete" outcome, the article is likely to be subject to a future DRV (not withstanding Fluke's future actions; this and future scenarios assume she does nothing after the result of this AFD, as none of us have a working crystal ball). Likewise, in the event of a pure "keep" outcome, I can practically guarantee that this article will be nominated again sometime in the future - it's an election year, so either someone will try and delete again during the election (which might or might not succeed), or shortly after the election (which, as it stands, probably would succeed.) In other words, I don't think anyone wants a result of "no consensus" (which, although I think the outcome is leaning towards redirect/merge, is also a plausible outcome), because it would just mean we'd all fight this battle again a few weeks or months down the road.

So, with that in mind, here is my proposed compromise:

  • Merge/Redirect Sandra Fluke to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy - thus sidestepping concerns many editors have over notability, the 10YT, and BLP1E.
  • Create the section(s) "2012 Presidential Election" and/or "Aftermath" in the article Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy - thus allowing for continued coverage of her activities several editors have asserted as notable. Since, as Hoary pointed out, Limbaugh has commented on the issue once more, and since most articles covering Fluke's activities still draw direct connections back to the original controversy, I think it is safe to simply expand the original article.

Thoughts everyone? Hopefully this addresses both parties concerns. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be in favor of either. A decision simply should be reached by the closing admin. Casprings (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you raise good points, and several issues have been raised that now need to be addressed on the RL-SF page, as you state, but I wouldn't exactly call that an AfD compromise. While some arguments have been made that the RL-SF page should remain, none have for the SF page; it should be deleted, and I don't think expansion of the RL-SF is going to have any effect on the Fluke fan partisans. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What, if anything, do you mean by "Fluke fan partisan"? (Somebody who doesn't share your enthusiasm for deleting this article?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as a compromise at all. Why should Fluke's bio be removed at all reducing her to only the initial dust-up that wasn't her fault? No, she should be seen in her own bio with a whole life that had this incident as her first big brush with national attention which she took advantage of. She has just now graduated so as she takes more opportunities to use her fame we'll have a more balanced reporting of her life. Insomesia (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because that argument assumes that she'll go on to do notable things in the future. If she does, maybe file another DRv and see what happens. Saying that we should keep her whole bio because "She has just now graduated so as she takes more opportunities to use her fame we'll have a more balanced reporting of her life." indisputably fails WP:CRYSTAL Zaldax (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not a compromise, but a consideration that the misplaced arguments HERE actually may be arguments that the RL-SF controversy page should NOT be merged into RL yet. It remains to be seen whether the current political re-animation of the RL-SF controversy is just another manufactured election season "spike", but Zaldax is correct in saying that while invalid here, the half-points being made SHOULD influence another page. As to "that wasn't her fault"; getting a dust-up was the clear intent of the whole charade. Republicans didn't bite, Limbaugh did. No dust-up, no TV for Fluke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your comments focussed just on this article not hypothetical implications and personal soapboxing. Suggesting other people's comments here are misplaced is pretty rude. Insomesia (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2012(UTC)
Not meant to be rude at all. Misplaced meaning put in a page where arguments are invalid (about WP:N of an PERSON) by Wikipedia rules, which might be valid according to WP:N(Events), aka on the RL-SF Controversy page. Comments are absolutely focused on what an argument on an AfD should focus on.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fluke's ongoing involvement in recent events still doesn't merit an article of its own, even if it was unrelated to the Limbaugh scandal (which it isn't.) Please see WP:NOTWHOSWHO - as she in no way merits a mention in the article about the 2012 election, the best place to mention any of her subsequent actions are in the main controversy article. Not on a separate page, which will only serve to further confuse readers and attract POV edits. (As it indisputably has in the past.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On further reflection, I'm changing my mind on this one. I still note the strong overlap between the current bio and the Rush Limbaugh controversy. But recent events have cast Fluke, not simply as a target of Limbaugh's ridicule, but as a more general advocate of women's health care rights. For example, Obama had Fluke introduce him in his recent Denver campaign stop because of her support for women's issues, and not specifically as a foil to Rush Limbaugh. I would now favour keeping the Sandra Fluke article, and replacing the overlapping material in Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy with an abridged summary and a "Main article" or "See also" pointing to Fluke's bio. — Richwales 16:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually listened to the short "intro" she gave, and over which all the press announcements were blogged; she basically reminded people of the Rush insult, then of the Obama phone call. While I think (as has been expressed above), the coverage may cause some editors to reconsider if the RL-SF page needs to be merged with RL, nothing said indicates the Democrats want Fluke other than to remind voters of an old spin war. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nothing said indicates the Democrats want Fluke other than to remind voters of an old spin war; or rather, O indefatigable 209.6.69.227, nothing said indicates this to you. I've just now gurgled "sandra fluke obama introduce" (or similar), and the topmost hit happened to be this from USA Today. Its first two paragraphs: The Georgetown law student thrust into the center of a debate about President Obama's policy on contraceptives will be introducing him tomorrow in Denver. / The Denver Post reports the campaign appearance by Sandra Fluke shows "the importance of the women's vote" in Colorado, a key swing state in the presidential election. A debate about contraceptives, not a debate about Issa, Limbaugh, et al. Though yes, Limbaugh does come up in the article after that. The link therein is to this at the Denver Post. Its first paragraph: In case you needed further proof of the importance of the women’s vote in Colorado this election – and that the Obama campaign is following the 2010 roadmap of U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet – word comes that Sandra Fluke will introduce President Obama at his Denver campaign stop. -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should then every person who introduces a President in a speech be considered notable, if announcements prior to the speech that the person is going to make the introduction be considered notable?
Wouldn't the brief event (the introduction of the president) not fall under WP:NOTNEWS, and the inconsequential introduction not pass WP:EFFECT?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know, but something similar rates a section within the article on Joe "the plumber". -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 12 August 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_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1223520371"