Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fluke (2nd nomination)

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 procedural speedy close without a decision one way or another. We dont waste time discussing deletion until there is someone who believes the article should be deleted. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Fluke

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

First Deletion resulted in keep. Recreated based on a a challenge to the process. Wanted to close the circle by nominating that page again for notability, even if I disagree. Casprings (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither in whole nor in any part does your nomination make any sense to me. There is no "circle", whether whole or almost whole. Nominating a page for notability makes no sense, and so far as I can start to guess at what it might mean, this doesn't sound like what an AfD nomination is for. If you disagree with a course of action, please save others a lot of time by not carrying it out. ¶ I'd close this AfD pronto as totally incoherent, if it weren't for the fact that I (perhaps rather too energetically) spoke for "keep" the first time around and might be accused of having some axe to grind. I warmly invite some uninterested editor to do what these minor qualms prevent me from doing. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. This might have been a stupid thing to do. The debate over this fascinated me. I admit that I started the article on her because I thought the Limbaugh controversy was unfair. However, the debate over the notability was something that I found interesting for the lack objective standards, at least in my view. I brought this here because I read that deletion reviews don't stop someone from using AfD and also because the last AfD was to endorse the deletion. I thought it would be a good final forum to give a debate. That said, I should not have did this and it was bad judgement. Casprings (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 30 June 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.