Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy


 * 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 Snow keep. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Single event, not a newspaper, and BLP. Herp Derp (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep except it's about a notable event covered by international media over 5 days and continuing with the same level of coverage and it's not a biography page. also, notability isn't temporary. just another herp derpy dunlikeit. Paintedxbird (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Major news story.  Maybe it is sad that this is what people are writing and talking about, but by Google News's count we've already crossed 5000 stories.  Per Notability (events), the coverage here is well beyond routine.  If we were talking about a personal biography, BLP would be more relevant.  However, both parties in this scenario have given multiple interviews to the press about this issue.  We should write carefully about the issue to maintain neutrality, and avoid irrelevant personal details, but I don't think we have the kind of privacy problems at this article that would mandate deletion.  Dragons flight (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, possible port to Wikinews This is probably more of a news story than an encyclopedia article, so Wikinews is probably the better venue. That having been said, this is causing Rush to lose sponsors, so it may have a ripple effect on his show. If so (and that remains to be seen... WP:CRYSTAL), some of this content could be merged into Rush Limbaugh or maybe someday be an article at such a time that there is enough commentary about this to warrant one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep National news for 6 days now.  Persistent news coverage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 06:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Really? It was all over the national and international media for days on end. Had advertisers pulling from Limbaugh's show, involved the President and members of Congress and petitions condemning Limbaugh everywhere. It is hardly a "single event". --Pstanton (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Rush Limbaugh. A news story that is a significant, albeit minor, episode in that biography. Carrite (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge' to R.L. If we had an article for every time Limbaugh makes an ass of himself, Wikipedia's servers would melt down.  EEng (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, per massive amount of coverage and notability, though the article could certainly do with some copyedits (and, in some places, good amounts of rewriting). Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 10:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as the KPUA cancellation and other fallout and withdrawals have taken this past any one-event concerns. - Dravecky (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dragons flight.-- В и к и  T   12:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know why this is even up for debate. --Auric (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nominator should be banned forever.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the decision in this case, Nominator is entitled to presumption of good faith. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Trying to delete an encyclopedia article on Einstein is not a sign of good faith.Pretzeldut (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's an important event in the U.S. presidential election cycle; I WP:SPLIT it off from Sandra Fluke (also at AfD), to preserve the information about the Limbaugh-Fluke flap; and created Contraceptive mandates for the issue that sparked the name-calling issue. A summary of the controversy is being maintained at Rush Limbaugh (section Sandra Fluke comments), in accordance with Summary style. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Paintedexbird and Dragons flight say it better than I can. This has gone well beyond routine coverage.  Does anyone else see it snowing? HangingCurveSwing for the fence 13:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep- could use renaming, as the current name is rather clunky. But at this point this has become way more than a simple news story, with potentially long lasting repercussions to Limbaugh's radio show, and with ripple effects in the american political landscape. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: And yes, please ban the nominator for frivolous nonsense.Ak47andmore (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep This page is on the front page of Google News. 12,000 page views. This event has already become one of the major stories of 2012. --Nbauman (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * keep - this is sufficiently covered content related to Linbaugh's career that would be UNDUE to contain within that article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * switching to Move Lead to Limbaugh and Delete - after reading the whole article, there is actually nothing other than trivia after the section lead. The lead can be covered in the Limbaugh article. (although it appears already covered in the Limbaugh article, this is essentially simply "delete"-- The Red Pen of Doom  21:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to Blunt Amendment or some other highly neutral and broad title. There are a raft of POV issues here. If you redirect to Rush Limbaugh, you help the GOP and conservatives make this about one man's loud mouth, and not the alleged sexist attitudes of an entire party. If you redirect to Sandra Fluke, you play into the hands of liberal activists who are working overtime to put a human face on the debate over insurance mandates. Other possible article titles could mention health insurance, moral exceptions for health services, contraception, and religious freedom. Each of these represents a certain POV, none of them neutral. Each of those is only one aspect of the Blunt Amendment, which sought to carve out an exception for "moral reasons" (not only religious ones) to the health insurance mandate. It was an exception large enough to cover practically anything, and Republicans, for rhetorical purposes, narrowed it to religious freedom, while Democrats narrowed it contraception, and further personalized it to be about one likable young woman. Limbaugh played into their hands by making it about one boorish man. To avoid playing along with any of the propagandists here, a neutral, broad title that is evocative of next to nothing, Blunt Amendment, encourages the reader to go beyond the title and read the whole story. And it encourages editors to include all the relevant facts, not just the salacious details of Limbaugh's insults and the drama that ensued. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: 2012 U.S. birth control insurance coverage mandate controversy sounds pretty neutral to me: I can't see how a title like that gives either side a framing advantage. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - strangely enough it still says "encyclopedia" underneath the Wikipedia logo. I suggest that also be deleted....--Kalsermar (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Major news story with persistent and massive coverage in reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as expansion of Rush Limbaugh article per WP:summary style. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Wknight94 talk 20:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge the bones to Rush Limbaugh. A news story of significane to warrent a minor mention in that biography. As it stands as now written its nothing more than a bloated tabloid-esque attack page. You really  can  21:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge While the story is of course perfectly notable, an article like this inherently raises BLP issues. I think it could be merged into Rush Limbaugh, expanding the coverage of the incident in that article. I'm also extremely surprised that there is no article on the Blunt Amendment and all the controversy around it - that would be another natural and appropriate home for this content. I would point to how odd it is that there is a complete article on these asinine remarks and none on the larger issue of the amendment, but to point out that we value the salacious over the truly important is beyond obvious. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: There will be one, if you help me write it. Meet me at Blunt Amendment? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Rush Limbaugh. Even if this event precipitates a significant change in his career/influence, it's more a part of his biography than a general event. The relevance to the presidential election also seems pretty low, since it's just resulted in a few comments from Obama and the Republican candidates. UltraNurd (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep 62 Refs and counting? Widespread media coverage? Involvement from POTUS? I'd say it merits its own article. -- Ja Ga  talk 21:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to mention 12,000+ pageviews. C'mon. -- Ja Ga  talk 21:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If excessive "popular intrest" in morbidly inane topics really correlated to importance, then we should have a different president. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Importance has nothing to do with Notability. I am confident Cato, New York is not important to anyone except the people who live there, but that does not make it any less notable, nor does it make it any less viable for inclusion. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 01:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Information is trivia and irrelevant to real life except for persons who support job-killing regulations and taxes on job creators!!! Yeahriiite (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — User:Yeahriiite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User's first edit.
 * Keep. This is a prominent political issue at the moment; perhaps at a later date it can be merged but for now it's a first class subject. Wainstead (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep—Really just piling-on at this point, but the amount of coverage makes this a notable event. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 02:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep IMO, this page should stay due to the huge amount of news coverage, but the Sandra Fluke page should be deleted. — NY-13021 (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete As I just posted on the article's talk page (in a complaint that the terms "slut", "prostitute", etc. are missing from the lead), I believe that absent a follow-up event of enduring notabiliy, such as Limbaugh's resignation or financial ruination, this is little more than a news story whose importance will fade once its cycle is run. Allreet (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is a major news story and clearly follows the notability guidelines. I think merging it with Rush Limbaugh or Contraceptive mandates would do a serious disservice to readers. Yellowy(talk) 04:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, possible rename, as discussed above. From the safe distance of over 3,000 miles from the Republican Primaries, I think this is pretty significant stuff. I'm unswayed by other !voters' protestations that this is a political article - it's about politics, but it can be written and edited in such a way as to be NPOV. The events themselves are notable and well-covered, in addition to the politician, the mandates, and the amendment. Sandra Fluke, on the other hand, is BLP1E material. And when will people learn that no-one's going to get banned from the site for a page nomination? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's more than a bit silly to have a deletion discussion when the merge discussion couldn't even gather consensus. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Better to merge Sandra Fluke to this article than everything to Rush Limbaugh. Speciate (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It is newsworthy, it has value in terms of concise information and it is as unbiased as the editing public can keep it. It has plenty of citations and sources noted.  There is no other source available like this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Route246 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Why this is even up for discussion? It is all over the news; It is a significant event worth documenting.Malin84 (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * comment - It might be the norm these days but I think it is sad that "it is in the news" has become a criterium for a so called encyclopaedic article.--Kalsermar (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: While I agree that much of the notoriety is temporary, the event is having a lasting effect and clearly meets notability requirements. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is not applicable, there are plenty of secondary sources used as references.--RDBury (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Rush Limbaugh doesn't need more controversy G Dijon (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — G Dijon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Someone having a lot of controversy surrounding them is not a reason for not including a wikipedia article about an event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.28.208 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment could whatever admin closes this one close the Sandra Fluke AfD as well? We really don't need two articles on the same thing. Speciate (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal to comment: It's not two articles on the same thing: I very carefully moved the bulk of the controversy out of Sandra Fluke and into Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, in accordance with Summary style. Perhaps when you have time you could take a glance at that editing guideline. The aim is to have a main article of unlimited size, about the controversy; and a short section summarizing the controversy in the articles about the contending parties. So even if Sandra Fluke is judged not to be a notable person, we can still keep all the important information about the controversy. Related issues include:
 * 2012 U.S. birth control insurance coverage mandate controversy
 * Contraceptive mandates
 * Conscience protection - not yet written
 * Blunt amendment - not yet written
 * Let's tell the whole story for our myriads of interested readers, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Everything is well sourced and the incident appears to heve been commented on by loads of notable people. The notoriety may well be temporary for the masses, but the incident is so revealing about a section of American society that it will have longevity. Meowy 01:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep. Topic is notable, and while some content may stray into BLP territory, that can be addressed with proper copy-editing and oversight. Also, speedy close. We should not be seriously entertaining deletion requests from a repeat-vandal who has made multiple frivolous AfD proposals before. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The incident has proven to have staying power in the news sphere and has had an effect on numerous fields, with major political figures getting involved.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Summarize and merge into Controversies section of Rush Limbaugh. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a major political controversy with massive ongoing worldwide coverage. A number of major corporate advertisers have dropped support of Limbaugh's show and issued statements on the controversy. The President has weighed in. This story has huge political implications that may well impact the outcome of 2012 elections in USA. This is already destined to be an important incident in American political history. What credible argument is there for deletion? PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not keep under its current form; in its current form, it is little more than news coverage, which is the remit of Wikinews, not us. I've always been of the opinion that coverage of current events should be retrospective and we shouldn't cover everything just because it's sourced; if anything, it enforces systemic bias to the present. However, there should be an article about the birth control issue, of which this should be a part. Sceptre (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Question How long does this normally take?  It seems like on this page, the general thought is to keep the article. Casprings (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seven days, sometimes a bit more. You  really  can  05:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Question Why are people wasting time discussing this? Why isn't there a mechanism to filter out obviously junk requests by vandals, or have it seconded by an admin first? The person who put up the delete warning label on the article is not acting in the best interests of Wikipedia for three reasons: (1) A warning label deters users from wanting to contribute (what's the use if it's going to be deleted) or even look at the article, (2) It wastes other people's time, (3) It makes Wikipedia look foolish. Incidentally, the person also tried to delete the article on Einstein's relativity. Pretzeldut (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Pretzeldut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If you disagree with our AFD process, go to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and propose a policy change. On this page, we're here to discuss whether this specific article should be deleted, not whether AFD tags on articles are a good idea. Also, try to avoid personal attacks, such as calling someone a vandal. Even if the nominator were indeed a vandal, the nomination was in good faith and has attracted significant support (don't take this as a statement on where consensus lies at this point). szyslak  ( t ) 08:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Though I support deleting the biography on Sandra Fluke, I think this incident is notable enough to describe on Wikipedia in some form, either in this article, in the Rush Limbaugh article, or in another related article. szyslak  ( t ) 08:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Important news story about important right wing U.S. political commentator and his personal attacks against people. Obvious vandalous AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.28.208 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not the newspaper.  If you want content on this subject, it should be in Limbaugh's article; an entire article on this is badly in violation of WP:UNDUE.  Nyttend backup (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Big event in Limbaugh's career and this year's American politics.Dvzmasz (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC) - — Dvzmasz (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: We all know this isn't going to be deleted, I cry for some bold admin to close it now without prejudice to a new AfD in 2 months time, if necessary.    The obvious precedent:  Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not just one event it's multiple events that happened because of the one incident such as the many sponsors that backed down from his radio show.  Jay Jay Talk to me 18:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep and speedy close, for the reasons already discussed here. A very vague deletion's rationale against tons of reliable extensive coverage in international sources (i.e., some Italian coverage:, , , , , ,,, , , , , , , ,and more) that demonstrate the weight of the controversity. No need to mention Limbaugh or Fluk) have never had coverage in Italian newspapers and magazines before this (clearly not minor) controversity. Deletion nominations such as this, two days after the same question was discussed as merge propostal, make a mockery of Wikipedia. Cavarrone (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In France too: http://vinogradoff.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/03/02/obama-descend-dans-larene-et-defend-une-etudiante-insultee-par-la-droite-conservatrice/ http://bigbrowser.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/03/06/zlut-lanimateur-star-des-ultraconservateurs-perd-ses-annonceurs-apres-un-derapage-verbal/ Pretzeldut (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Pretzeldut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. Very notable, lots of media attention. Everyking (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Is a single event that is part of a long-standing controversy.  It is the long-standing controversy, coverage of which is currently spread out over several Wikipedia articles that is of encyclopedic note, not the single event.  We should not give undue weight to recent events.  (Also, if the article on Sandra Fluke is deleted, this article should definitely be deleted.  You do not want the only article on a living person to be the one about the controversy.) Bwrs (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol! and that, based on which policy?! In Sandra Fluke AfD you (and me too) argued the article should be deleted as the subject meets BLP1E, and BLP1E policy says the exact opposite of what you're stating: "it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Cavarrone (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- WP:NOTNEWS is meant for, as it states, "routine coverage" for "things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." The coverage scale here is nothing of a sort.  When a controversy erupts to such a magnitude, there is nothing "routine" about it.  Far too much topic-specific content to merge to already long other articles. --Oakshade (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Substantial and sustained news coverage--an important national event. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Never mind the 66 citations -- pretty much every where you go there's banner ads lobbying for people to take sides on the issue. It's very controversial, not a single nonnotable event. CarniCat 00:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, if only to keep the controversies section on Limbaugh's page from being doubled in length by all the content that would be merged into it. TheRealTeln (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mega-tonnage of WP:RS out there to establish notability till the end of time. Qworty (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Clear Keep - I am honestly astounded to find that this article has been brought to AFD. I've seen political/media controversies come and go, for more than 4 decades. This one is still going strong after more than a week -- hardly a one-day wonder. The controversy has snowballed far beyond what I initially anticipated, and will not soon be forgotten. I don't recall the last time a sitting President took the extraordinary step of placing a phone call to somebody who had been badly treated by a media personality. Highly unusual. I'm not sure there's anything else left to say that hasn't already been nicely articulated by so many other editors. So I will simply note that it is very discouraging to see (once again) how easily the AFD process can be abused. I do think we should have a procedure in place to enable us to ban repeat-abusers from further AFD nominations -- perhaps a "three strikes and you're out" sort of thing. (I can't help thinking of the way "Frivolous lawsuits" are dealt with in the legal system.) Cgingold (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, this kind of vandalous activity - and a policy that tolerates it and wastes people's time - make Wikipedia look foolish. Pretzeldut (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Tons of coverage, RL's own article is already huge and can't contain all the information here. Sergecross73   msg me   17:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.