Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion

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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article does not conform to the title. Rather than discussing her contributions or influence as a whole (which, alone, would not be very long) the article is solely about her bare arms. The editor who created the article (User:Grundle2600) has been pushing for more mention across Wikipedia on Mrs. Obama's arms, and his attempts have been decried by many as simply unencyclopedic (see: [1],[2],[3], Talk:Michelle Obama#Sentence on her arms, Talk:Michelle Obama#Second sentence on her arms). The creation of this article only furthers that opinion, especially since much of the material is copied verbatim from the article that he attempted to create a while back entiled Michelle Obama's arms (as an admin, I checked it out). In addition, the Michelle Obama article is rather short and any/all influences on style/fashion should go in there. Furthermore, both Jackie Kennedy and arguably Nancy Reagan had more of an impact in three and eight years, respectfully, than Mrs. Obama has had in six months. Perhaps in time, if there is a "Michelle look" like there was a "Jakie" and a "Nancy", then this topic would hold some water. But for now, all should go in the Michelle article because there isn't a reason to create a new one (especially one which focuses solely on her arms). Happyme22 (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this article does not conform to the title is because when I created Michelle Obama's arms, which was an accurate title, the consensus of the deletion discussion was to incorporate the material into a large article about Michelle Obama and fashion. The consensus for deletion was agaiast wikipedia policy, as no one cited any official rules to justify the deletion. I would prefer that Michelle Obama's arms be restored, because I cited 11 articles about the subject from mainstream sources, which makes the subject notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you think the deletion decision was incorrect, the correct next step was WP:DRV, not recreating the article with an inaccurate title. Your comments on this page only confirm that G4 speedy deletion of this article is exactly what should have happened. Why didn't you go to deletion review? Lady of Shalott 03:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) *Delete. Content fork, anything worthwhile should be part of Michelle Obama, her arms and influence on style haven't reached the levels of Michael Jackson's influence on other artists just as yet. Also, the previous AfD on her arms was a delete, so if the content of this page is similar (and there's nothing other than her arms, so an admin should check it out) it should be Speedy Deleted G4. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm an admin and I checked it out; it is written nearly verbatim and is in violation of SD G4. However, when it was tagged for SD the tag was removed by User:Jclemens who said it was not G4. I've contacted Jclemens. Happyme22 (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was an edit conflict, I started my message before you added that piece in, so ignore. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a "subpage" of the Michelle Obama main page. I certainly agree that the writing could and should be much better, but that alone is not a reason for deletion. Regardless, this is more of an issue to be discussed on Talk:Michelle Obama then here, and sure enough there is a discussion occuring there now about this article/issue. Ω (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit confused; what does it being a subpage have to do with anything? The topic of her arms is not encyclopedic. It's content forking. The latest discussion dealing with her arms was last commented on June 11 and has pretty much been put to rest. Happyme22 (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've re-read this page and both Talk:Michelle Obama and Talk:Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion. I can understand the point that you and others are attempting to convey to Grundle2600, but I can see his "side" as well. In my opinion he's simply not articulating either the article content or the "debate" points well. It may not be very important information to you or I, but it's certainly an important topic to many other people. Other First Lady's and other notable women have sections or whole articles on their social influence... "It's not important" just doesn't seem to be a good reason to delete content to me I guess. Ω (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One additional issue that I'll dare to bring up is that this seems to be a poor use of the AfD process. It seem to me that it would be more constructive to continue to work with the Talk:Michelle Obama "community" and reach some sort of consensus on the issue prior to bringing it here. My apologies for being somewhat "preachy", but this seem to me to be a common problem when it comes to deleting articles... Ω (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that saying some people are interested in Michelle Obama's arms is a legititmate reason for keeping the article. Many people are interested in Michelle Obama's fashions, and there is still room for those in the Michelle Obama article rather than creating a new one. In addition, this article's title was used as a mask to cloak the content, which is a long diatribe and satirical statements about her arms. As for "poor use of the AFD process": I disagree completely. I would have deleted it myself per SD G4 but one speedy deletion tag had already been removed, and the next step to contest the creation of an article is AFD. Nothing wrong there. Happyme22 (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have restored the article and re-opened this discussion after speedy deleting it on criteria G4. I didn't notice that a previous speedy deletion request had been turned down, though I do think that this article is a clear example where G4 applies. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Unencyclopedic" is NOT a reason to delete an article. The subject of the article is notable per WP:NOTE and the information is verified by reliable sources. Not that it is relevant, but the deletion of the article on Michele Obama's arms was ill-considered and against Wikipedia policy and was nothing less than an attack on common sense. I am ashamed that Wikipedia editors want to suppress knowledge about such topics. Drawn Some (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Unencyclopedic" is most definitely a reason to delete an article. See our deletion policy: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to: [...] Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Jafeluv (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC for that and other points NOT to argue during deletion discussions. Drawn Some (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Unencyclopedic" is a reason to delete an article. The argument to avoid there is stating "the article is unencyclopedic" without explaining why it's unencyclopedic. That's how I interpret it, anyway – if you want to keep discussing this, we can continue on my talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Jafeluv has pointed out, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC does not say that "Unencyclopedic" is not a reason to delete an article, but even if it did, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC just lists some editors' opinions: anyone can write a page giving their opinion. On the other hand content not suitable for an encyclopedia is listed in a Wikipedia policy as a criterion. Besides, even if policy didn't mention it, to deny that unencyclopedic matter should be excluded from an encyclopedia would be absurd: that's what "unencyclopedic" means. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree that the deletion of Michelle Obama's arms was against wikipedia policy. Here is the list of sources that were cited in that article:
  1. ^ Michelle Obama's right to bare arms, The Boston Globe, March 19, 2009
  2. ^ a b c How to get Michelle Obama's toned arms, CNN
  3. ^ Strong-arm tactics: First Lady of Fitness: Michelle Obama's guns inspire workouts, Chicago Sun-Times, March 10, 2009
  4. ^ How to get Michelle Obama's toned arms, The Seattle Times, March 25, 2009 (This is a different article than the CNN article of the same name)
  5. ^ Michelle Obama Goes Sleeveless, Again, The New York Times, February 25, 2009
  6. ^ All Hail the Leader of the Fashionable World, The Washington Post, January 21, 2009
  7. ^ Michelle Obama and our buff-arm fetish, The Chicago Tribune, February 26, 2009
  8. ^ Michelle Obama: The right to bare arms, MSNBC, February 25, 2009
  9. ^ Michelle Obama bares arms in official White House portrait, Los Angeles Times, February 27, 2009
  10. ^ a b Michelle Obama's toned arms are debated, Los Angeles Times, March 29, 2009
  11. ^ Obama's Choice to Bare Arms Causes Uproar, ABC News, March 2, 2009

Given those sources, I think that Michelle Obama's arms should be restored.

The consensus to delete Michelle Obama's arms was against wikipedia policy.

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope that isn't an attempt to make a real argument. The only thing that you said there was WP:IDONTLIKEIT... Ω (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 'I don't like POV forks' and think they should be deleted. Thank you for listening. MickMacNee (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a "fetish" on the subject. I cited 11 articles about the subject, all from mainstream sources. That makes the subject notable. For you to say I have a "fetish" on the subject is a personal attack, not an argument for deletion. And if having a "fetish" is a reason for deletion, then why hasn't the article on Phoebe Cates been nominated for deletion? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world is this a WP:POVFORK? That makes no sense. Was there an article discussing Michele Obama and style and fashion and one side said she had no influence on it and the other said she did so a rogue editor split this off to exaggerate a minority viewpoint or something? Come up with something that makes sense. Drawn Some (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is effectively a recreation of the Obama arms article. Consensus was delete then, and nothing has really changed since then. Gigs (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this drivel. Anything salvagable can be merged to Michelle Obama. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calling something "drivel" is not an argument for deletion. I cited 11 articles about the subject, all from mainstream sources. That makes it notable. If being "drivel" is a reason for deletion, then why hasn't the article on Pauly Shore been deleted? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY c4 and WP:RECREATE. The nominating admin concluded that this article is substantially a recreation of an article that we have already decided to delete. Policy dictates that this article is presumptively toast, then, unless someone is challenging that conclusion. No one has done so, and unless they intend to, I think we can speedy this and bypass the extended debate. To the extent that we can't, if this article isn't covered by WP:RECREATE, I second MSGJ.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Recreation of article about her arms which was previously deleted by AFD. Should have been speedily deleted as such. This retitled article is simply an attempt to game the system. Fails notability. Content fork. Unencyclopedic, and gives undue weight. Edison (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure to note the earier conversation that this wasn't actually WP:SPEEDY because of a disagreement between admins/concern raised by an admin. This page was also intentionally forked from the main Michelle Obama page, and this nomination seems to be more an incorrect use of AfD in order to cut short the conversation then to actually solve a problem. Most importantly though, what's all the rush about? Ω (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms, the arguments for deleting the article went against wikipedia policy. The consensus itself went against wikipedia policy. I cited 11 articles about the subject, all from mainstream sources. That makes the subject notable. Just because the subject was silly is not a justifiable reason for deletion. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should delete this article, but only if we restore Michelle Obama's arms. The discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms did not cite any official rules to delete the article. Instead, the only arguments were attacks against the subject. But I cited 11 articles about the subject from mainstream sources, and that makes the subject notable. I want Michelle Obama's arms restored. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In posting this comment, Grundle - the two articles' creator - is now saying he thinks the AfD should result in this article's deletion, but only if we re-create Michelle Obama's arms - so as several editors who have talked with him about it in various iterations have said here, he is interested, really, in getting the material about her arms in, and is just shifting from one approach to another to do so. Does this mean he has backed away from his own "keep" comment? Speedy may have been the proper response after all. Tvoz/talk 16:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now that the article is not about the arms anymore but about her influence in these areas as a whole. As such, exporting material from Michelle Obama to this new article is something that is quite allowed in the policies and even preferred by WP:SIZE to avoid making the main article too long. The title of the article might need a change to conform MOS but the goal to fork out style and fashion related material from the parent article is perfectly fine within policy and the !votes for deletion based on the previous article fail to take into account that the page does not reflect the previously deleted version anymore. Regards So Why 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my reply about the length of the main article below in my "Delete" comment. Tvoz/talk 16:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sweet jesus on a pogo stick, we're here again? As noted by others, the "arms" article was already deleted via AfD. Despite the title and slightly expanded topic area to style, the bulk of the article still centers around the the lady's pecs biceps. Where this falls short in the notability guidelines is the "...presumed to satisfy" aspect of it. It appears from past discussion on the main Michelle Obama page as well as in the prior AfD that the subject matter is simply not appropriate for a standalone article. Its just...fluff, like the kind of off-beat story that what's-her-name on CNN does about potato chip pantsuits and other silly season junk. Not everything mentioned by the media is instantly article-worthy, and via the 5th bullet point of the "General notability guideline", editors have the support they need to decide, by consensus, that some reliably-sourced events are just too dumb and too irrelevant to warrant an article. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about pecs. It doesn't even mention her pecs. Why would you say it's about her pecs? What kind of a comment is that? Drawn Some (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant biceps, must've had a brain cramp. There was little need for your strawman retort, though. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially a re-creation of the deleted "arms" article: this editor has tried repeatedly to insert this material in one place or another and it's been removed each time by consensus, so this is his latest gambit. In reply to User: SoWhy's comment above: the Michelle Obama main article is only 19K of readable prose and no one has agreed to a need to cut it down by forking off the material about her influence on style and fashion; in fact at present it is a reasonably sized article and this section is an integral part of it. If the size of the main article becomes an issue, the editors would decide which section was reasonable to fork, and it would not necessarily be this one done by fiat. What Grundle has tried to do in various ways is to expand upon the mention we already have about her arms (which the editors of the page see as proper weight for this minor matter), and when that was rejected by consensus he tried another angle - but it has always been about her arms and the coverage (no pun intended) they have received. Tvoz/talk 16:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was the one who tagged it with G4, but Jdclemens disagreed and declined the nomination. Even though I tagged for another admin to look at rather than just deleting, I think the article is basically the same as what was deleted per the prior AfD, and that G4 should apply. Lady of Shalott 16:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as trivia. This is exactly what an encyclopedia shouldn't document, perhaps it will at some time in the future change the way we see arms on woman - but that is one for the crystal ball, and not for an encyclopedia. As for Grundle2600's comments: Not everything that gets written about in reliable sources is material for an encyclopedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The subject is clearly notable. There has been lots of substantial coverage of Michele Obama's fashion and dress. Any issues with this particular version of the content can be corrected with editing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While certain aspects of her fashion coverage are notable, those belong in the Michelle Obama article (which is already quite short). The problem is not so much in the title of the article's subject, but in that the title is a mask for what is actually written in the article -- it is a long diatribe about her arms. Happyme22 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like the Obamas and all, but this kind of fawning over them is getting embarassing. Sure this kind of thing is covered in the news media, but it's really a topic for style magazines, not an encyclopedia. Maybe some of it can be merged into a brief mention at Michelle Obama, and maybe someday in the future she'll be remembered for her fashion influence and we can write about it then, but for God's sake she's been the First Lady for only a couple of months. Peacock (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a bunch of unrelated facts tied together using WP:OR. Corpx (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply not true. There are many articles discussing her influence on fashion and style in general and her arms in particular. The article is extremely well-referenced with reliable sources and there is no original research at all. Drawn Some (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree this article needs to be largely rewritten and a lot of the stuff about her 'arms' sounds far too much like something that would be deleted under db-nonsense. However, the topic is clearly notable. A lot of things could be added here, such as media coverage of her at the G20 Summit. Her fashion and dress got as much coverage here in the UK as her husband did. Mr pand [talk | contributions] 17:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • However we must look at the larger scale; brief stints in the media to not account to notability. There is still a lot of room in the Michelle Obama article for all her notable fashion acheivements. As I say in the introduction, if a "Michelle look" comes about and this fashion coverage is endless, then a page dedicated to her fashion may be appropriate down the road. But that's WP:CRYSTAL. As for now, the article's title serves as a mask for what the content is -- long diatribes and satirical remarks about the non-notable subject of her arms. Happyme22 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic is Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion. Note the word influence. I think the notable topic title you are trying to defend with this keep is Media coverage/analysis of Michelle Obama's clothes. Two entirely different things. MickMacNee (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The naming issue can be sorted out. But I don't think there's any question that her dress and fashion has received very substantial coverage. Fashion isn't a major interest of mine, but I think it's a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In certain cases, yes, ChildofMidnight, her fashion can be a legit topic. But as of yet there is no indication that we should create a separate article, especially one which does not conform to its title. All things fashion belong in the Michelle Obama article. Happyme22 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name can be sorted right now, just remove the words influence on for the title and you are pretty much at where this article is. MickMacNee (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and update: User:Grundle has now copied verbatim a section of the Michelle Obama article on her fashion and style and added it to this new article. It seems to me to be a desperate attempt to provide additional information while still retaining all the non-notable info about her arms. One should not copy material from one article and place it in another without consensus to move. Happyme22 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course her arms are notable. They have received significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. To say that they are not notable is to reject our guidelines on notability. Please find a valid argument if argue you must. Her arms are more notable than 75% of the articles that come through AfD, at least. Drawn Some (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, an entire article devoted to her arms is ludicrous. Her arms are already covered in proper context within the Michelle Obama article and we don't need more. This has been discussed many times before (Talk:Michelle Obama#Sentence on her arms, Talk:Michelle Obama#Second sentence on her arms). Happyme22 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the topic is ludicrous is a matter of taste but it is simply false to call it non-notable for it clearly is. Not only is it notable, but the sources themselves are quite respectable, the most important newspapers, television networks and news shows, and magazines that exist. There are dozens if not hundreds of articles on her arms, specifically on her arms, discussing them in great depth. There is more in-depth coverage of them weekly if not daily and it shows no signs of abating. Call it ludicrous but do not misrepresent it as non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed non-notable, which is why I noted the "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article" part of WP:N earlier. Grundle2600, and other editors apparently, have an over-reliance on the "its reliably sourced!" argument. It isn't the be all, end all arbiter of what is appropriate for an article. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit it meets the criteria for inclusion but you just don't like it? Drawn Some (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That many sources have puff pieces on the topic, yes. That isn't enough to warrant its own article though, and consensus on the main article seems to be that it isn't relevant enough for that either. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is a coatrack for her arms, and there's a strong consensus against having an article on this topic. I think the idea of having an article on her arms is bloody stupid. Fences&Windows 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G4) as blatant recreation of deleted material. This is gaming the system, plain and simple. MuZemike 21:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ridiculous excuse for someone's arms obsession. Each First Lady's BLP main article includes a discussion of their influence on style and fasion (or lack of influence), and the Michelle Obama article should be no different. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as utter crap. Peter Damian (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like in the previous deletion discussion, no one who favors deletion has cited any actual wikipedia rules that the article violates. They have called the article "fetish," "drivel," "ridiculous," and "crap," but those are all personal insults, not an argument for deletion. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, there have been many comments above that cite policies and guidelines such as notability, content forking, recreation of deleted material, and coatracking. Why are you only cherry-picking the obviously bad ones, e.g. Damian's "utter crap" entry? Tarc (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. This is perhaps the silliest AfD discussion I have ever seen. Grundle2600 writes a pointless article about someone's arms, it is quite rightly deleted, and Grundle2600, not content with accepting consensus, tries to resurrect essentially the same trivial article under a new title which claims it is about her "influence on style and fashion", but it is still clearly about her arms. And we are debating whether to keep it?? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the above. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are thousands of sources covering this topic from an international perspective. Per WP:CENSOR, "being objectionable is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content isn't objectionable, but the topic is ridiculous. There's a difference. Fences&Windows 00:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no difference. The delete camp seem just like mullahs demanding that women cover themselves and censoring the press accordingly. There is a clear sentiment of outrage which perhaps arises from the systemic bias of the demographics of Wikipedia editors - not the sort to look favourably upon the huge topic and industry of fashion. The test at AFD is not what we personally think of a topic but what the world makes of it. The world's press have written many thousands of words about this topic on many occasions - I recently read an interesting account of how Michelle Obama compared with Sarah Brown and Carla Sarkozy on the occasion of her visit to Europe. If this were another sort of topic then it would be waved through here with speedy keeps by virtue of the abundant sources. Because it concerns fashion, the sentiments of Mrs Grundy appear instead. It is a disgraceful display of personal prejudice and WP:CENSOR tells us that this is contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, this should have been deleted under G4 as a recreated deleted article - what a mess. DRV was the correct route here and instead we're doing AfD 2.0 of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms. Sometimes t really is better to wipe the board clean and start fresh. This is rather WP:Undue and likely pointy in some way - the mind reels. This is a case where our policies of WP:BLP trump normal proceedings and an article is so short and malformed it's actually doing more harm than good and fueling that Wikipedia is disreputable. I'll likely take this to DRV myself if it's not deleted for abusing prior consensus. We can do much better than this and our readers deserve much better. -- Banjeboi 10:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per Hilary Clinton's elbow — and note that I opined G4 somewhere above. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea, you voted delete above too with a G4 rationale. This isn't Chicago, you can't vote twice. :) Tarc (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete Really? An article about Michelle Obama's arms? It should be speedied. There is no reason that changing the title can be allowed to circumvent g4. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. I agree with Grundle2600 that Michelle's fashion choices are important, but I think her arms deserve one sentence in one paragraph under "Influence on fashion" in the main article. Yoninah (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is where it is. Tvoz/talk 04:14, 24 June 2009 (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/Michelle_Obama%27s_influence_on_style_and_fashion&oldid=1140137998"