- Orly Taitz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The following is the reason the closing Admin gave:
The result was delete and redirect to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. In the five days since this debate opened, the article essentially remained a stub, and there wasn't enough biographical information added to prove she is notable beyond the "birther" debate. Granted, there was a fairly large majority of "Keeps," but articles like this are, to my mind, a textbook example of why AFD is not a vote. Blueboy96 17:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not clear to me why the subject of the article needs to be notable beyond the birther movement in order to have its own article. The birther movement is notable (it has its own article) which to me clearly indicates that notable people within the movement are also notable. The fact that the article remained a stub does not mean that it should be deleted. As time goes on and more information comes out, the article will grow accordingly. Dems on the move (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - "Dems on the move" has a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BLP1E, since yes, a person has to have notability beyond a single issue, i.e. birthers. This is evident by the edit warring on the 1E section, and then the universal rejection of his edits on the talk page. As for the closing admin's rationale, IMO he was correct to discount a portion of the "keep" votes, as there were a lot of WP:SPAs and flawed "Taitz was on TV last night!" types of WP:ILIKEIT entries. A tough call to make, but should be allowed to stand. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that although the SPA notice was placed on the top of the page, there was only one instance noted on the page of an SPA. When I saw that noticed placed on the page I almost removed it since I knew it would have an impact on the decision to close the discussion, one way or the other. So no, there were not "a lot of SPAs". IncidentalPoint (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Side-tangent of the semantics of an argument
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
- I also want to add that the discussion should stay on topic, and not slide to the personal level the way that Tarc is attempting to turn this into a discussion about me. As can be seen, I'm not the only one who supports overturning the decision to delete. Dems on the move (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is nothing personal against you, and if you take it that way that's really not my problem. What I have done is picked apart your argument, as you are not applying BLP policy correctly, IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you have not "picked apart [my] arguments". What you are doing is using ad hominem arguments. Dems on the move (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no. Argumentum ad hominem would be someone attacking you personally to defeat your position, rather than arguing against the position you take. What I have done is attack your interpretation (i.e. position) of BLP policy, which is fundamentally flawed. So please, don't toss out the fancy Latin when you don't know what it actually means, ok? Ok. Tarc (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for making my point by repeating your use of ad hominem arguments. Dems on the move (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing of the sort here, so thank you for yet more baseless claims to detract from your crumbling argument. Nothing else to say on this tangent. Tarc (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but after reading this I felt I had to chime in, since the communication doesn't seem to be working. The statements that could seem ad hominem are things like "Dems on the move" has a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BLP1E and don't toss out the fancy Latin when you don't know what it actually means, ok?... Luminifer (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Note from closing admin I admit, this was a tough call to make. The woman has gotten coverage out the wazoo--but virtually all of it relates to her role in the birther cause. The article was basically a stub, with little biographical information to speak of. If there had been more biographical information, or she'd done something that would confer inherent notability, it would have been enough to save the article. Blueboy96 18:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Mine was one of the many keep comments on this AfD, but AfD is not a vote and the close was well within the normal discretion of a closing admin. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn- I think the BLP1E arguments were pretty well refuted in the afd, with the point being made that this woman has made every effort to stay in the public spotlight, appearing on Colbert, Stewart, NPR and the like, which shows that she's not trying to remain low profile, which the policy states as a guide to who deserves an article and who doesn't. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - just another BLP1E birther with no notability on her own behalf. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion No particular notability beyond that covered in the redirect, very weak sources. PhGustaf (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, textbook case of BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as the original nominator. RayTalk 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Was the proper call. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion. The WP:BLP1E standard is notability only for a single event; it would be incorrect to expand that, per Tarc's argument to delete an article for a person who lacks "notability beyond a single issue". JamesMLane t c 12:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trying to draw a distinction between "one event" and "one issue" seems to be some mighty fine hair-splitting that doesn't seem to be supported by the policy cited. IMO "event" sufficiently covers single-issue advocacy as well. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're free to hold the opinion that the policy, which refers to "event" throughout, should be amended to cover "event or issue". I was going by what it actually says now. I don't see this as at all a hair-splitting distinction. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry was one event. Abolitionism was an issue. Similarly, there are some lawyers who gain public notice because of their involvement in a single highly publicized case. Taitz isn't in that category. JamesMLane t c 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing needs to be amended; it already reads that way. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, in WP:BLP1E, the word "event" occurs in the section heading and six more times in the text. The word "issue" has zero occurrences. So, no, it does not already read the way you want it to read. JamesMLane t c 05:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're essentially pulling a Clinton and quibbling over what the difference of is is here. I didn't say that the word "issue" appears on the page. What I did say is that the meaning of "one event" is broad enough already to address individuals whose only notability stems from single-issue advocacy. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I would suggest that Taitz is involved in a single issue (the bither movement) but multiple events (many media appearances, I'm not sure how many lawsuits, continuing coverage - and her many actions which she performs with respect to the movement, each of which can be considered an "event"). Luminifer (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion - there is a massive amount of media coverage of this woman - and there is no indication that this is going to cease. Much of this, I imagine, will eventually be placed in the article once proper references are found. It would not make sense to list her media appearances under the "birther" movement, as they are somewhat related but there is not an absolutely correlation - unless we want to list all media appearances of all people involved in the birther movement. This woman is notable for (a) being involved in the birther movement, and (b) being so incredibly visible regarding her involvement in it. I believe that these actually count as separate things. Luminifer (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion. The overwhelming majority of !voters supported keeping the article. A clear majority of the !voters who discussed policy in some detail supported keeping the article. Relevant language in WP:BLP1E can easily and reasonably be read as supporting keeping the article: If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. To the extent this standard was addressed in the deletion discussion, the consensus clearly supported keeping the article under this policy provision. BLP1E also indicates that one important factor in determining whether a separate article is justified is "how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." When the closing administrator, by his/her own admission, discounted the substantial "coverage out the wazoo" the article subject has received in the news media, he/she failed to properly apply the provisions of BLP1E. When an AFD discussion turns on the interpretation of Wikipedia policy, as it did here, the closing administrator should determine whether a consensus was reached through reasonable discussion of the policy involved. Here, no one disputes that both sides held reasonable positions on interpreting the policy. In a situation like this, the closing administrator has no business substituting his/her own interpretation of policy for the expressed consensus interpretation, so long as that interpretation is reasonable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, textbook case of BLP1E, the efforts to try to pad the article into an actual bio support this conclusion. --Stormie (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as supported by BLP1E. — Kralizec! (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion (restore revision history), but uphold redirection. The closer has conflated two separate questions: "Does the subject currently warrant a dedicated article?" and "Should said article be deleted?"
He has stated that his decision stems from the failure to expand the article beyond a stub before the discussion's closure. Since when do we delete articles because they're too short? That can be a valid reason to merge any useful content into another article and redirect the title there, and Blueboy96's closure calls for such a redirect. I don't object to that portion, but why was the deletion warranted? Blueboy96 has acknowledged above that "this was a tough call," so why not leave the revision history in place (thereby allowing editors to expand the former article's content if/when this becomes feasible)?
Blueboy96 is quite correct that an AfD debate is not a majority vote, but the burden lies on those advocating deletion. There might not be consensus to retain a dedicated article for Orly Taitz at this juncture, but there clearly wasn't consensus to delete it outright (thereby preventing editors from addressing the issues said to justify the redirection).
Therefore, my position is that the redirect should remain in place for the time being, but the article's revision history should be restored along with its talk page (an appropriate venue for any future discussion on whether to revive the dedicated article). —David Levy 11:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Taitz has gained and kept attention only because of her lawsuit on Birther issues. Beyond that, she hasn't done anything notable. The main reason for the attention, I think, is she presented a somewhat novel arguement, that Obama couldn't order soldier's deployed if he wasn't the President. Somewhat new, different from the other (failed lawsuits), so the Birthers lept on her train. Everything notable she's done is related to this issue, making the redirect the correct action here. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:BIO : Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.. You said "beyond that", she hasn't done anything notable, but WP:BIO doesn't state that you have to have done two notable things. If she is notable enough to be interviewed so much on television, she is likely notable enough to have a WP:BIO this is particularly relevant as people will see her on TV, look her up, and want to read about her on wikipedia. Luminifer (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why it helps to keep reading the rest of a policy page...which is where one would encounter the "People notable only for one event" section...rather than just citing the lead. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One could argue that the lead should tell someone everything they need to know, excepting clarifications. In this case, then, I would suggest that someone (you?) amend the lead to be clearer. Luminifer (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps that is true, however this particular confusion is why most of the endorse folks have referred to the specific WP:BLP1E rather than the general WP:BIO as being the primary guiding policy. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting point, although even there, Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. -- this person has NOT maintained a low-profile individual. (I stand by my point that she has two form of notability - (a) association with the movement and (b) how she is capitalizing on it) Luminifer (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The real arbiter of 1E policy is a simple question; absent Taitz's involvement with the Birther brigade, would she be worthy of a Wikipedia article? Tarc (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's an oversimplification of 1E. (Note the John Hinckley, Jr. example.)
- It is explicitly stated that a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted "if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile." Are you suggesting that Ms. Taitz has remained low-profile?
- I also object to the use of the term "event" to mean "issue." The two are not the same. —David Levy 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't an oversimplification. Even the "simple test" can have the occasional exception. The Hinckley case is one of these, as the event (assassination) it itself such a critial, noteworthy issue. Birthergate does not rise to that standard, though. As far as Taitz and low-profile go though, yes, she is. In terms of reliably sourced media, Taitz is no higher or lower on the totem pole as Berg or any of the others. In unreliable fringe media, sure, she is some kinda of twisted folk hero. But non-RS is irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Hinckley isn't an "exception." He's an example of a high-profile individual whose notability stemmed entirely from one event. Whether Taitz is low-profile is debatable (and we'll have to agree to disagree), but regardless, it's incorrect to state that the "single event" criterion is the sole determining factor.
- And again, Taitz is known primarily for her involvement in a single issue, not a single event.
- However, note that I don't seek to undo the redirection. I merely contest the revision history's deletion. (See my comments above.) —David Levy 03:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A "high-profile individual whose notability stemmed entirely from one event", yes. In most cases like that the person fails 1E, but since an assassination attempt is in itself so thoroughly notable, an article on the assassin can be seen as notable. That is as plain a definition of the word "exception" as one can have. And as I have explained above, I don't see the definition of "event" being as restrictive as you make it out to be. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I'm missing it - can you re-quote or point out where you explain what you interpret "event" to mean? Luminifer (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, "a high-profile individual whose notability stemmed entirely from one event" does not fail 1E, which explicitly includes only low-profile persons. Something cannot be an exception to a rule that doesn't apply in the first place.
- I strongly disagree with your interpretation of 1E's scope. It exists to protect the privacy of a low-profile individual involved in one event. It was never intended to be applied to a person who actively seeks publicity by participating in many prominent events.
- For example, when dealing with an event such as the Columbine High School massacre, we don't create individual articles for the victims (whose backgrounds are irrelevant to the incident, and whose involvement was involuntary). But we do create articles for the perpetrators, who clearly did not maintain low profiles.
- Not only is Orly Taitz not a low-profile individual (or even someone who seeks to maintain a low profile), but her notability stems from her numerous (and ongoing) attempts to advance a cause, not from a single event. Your argument that "single-issue advocacy" can be deemed tantamount to a "single event" stems from an apparent misunderstanding of 1E's purpose (which is to protect the privacy of persons caught up in one-off occurrences, not to weed out persons who are simply non-notable, which requires no special rule). —David Levy 05:13/05:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I;m not going to reinvent the wheel every time you don't get what I have said, and try again from a different angle. Cheers. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone expresses disagreement with you, it means that they "don't get" what you've said? Wow. —David Levy 16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. If there's nothing to say about her apart from her penchant for self-publicity and precious little actual biographical sourcing, then BLP1E clearly applies. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse -- but restore edit history, and merge edit history from Orly taitz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore), the previous deletion. (See David Levy comments above.) If s/he arises to greater notability, then the previous edits should be available to turn this into an article.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. While I leaned moderately toward keeping this article, and I would support re-creation if Taitz achieved notability beyond 1E, there was nothing wrong with this closure. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you see a reason to delete and redirect instead of simply redirecting?
- Also, given Blueboy96's acknowledgment that "this was a tough call," why was it appropriate to close the debate after less than four days (which he incorrectly referred to as "five days") instead of the usual duration of "at least seven days"? —David Levy 14:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And it says "Certification of Live Birth" instead of "Birth Certificate". Nitpicks all. I might have preferred to keep the article history (i.e. simple redirect rather than delete+redirect), but there may have been a concern that a loon magnet issue like this would be prone to nuisance re-creation. I don't feel strongly about the 5/7 day wait, and overturning the AfD closure over this seems WP:BURO. This closure is valid, even if I would have done it differently. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, I was addressing your statement that "there was nothing wrong with this closure." It's fine to endorse it, but it's hardly nitpicking to point out that it occurred more than three days sooner than usual (particularly given the closer's acknowledgment that it was "a tough call").
- Secondly, if the revision history were retained, the redirect could be protected to prevent reviving the article without consensus.
- Thirdly, as you've compared my position with that of the birthers, I'd like to state for the record that I personally regard the latter as absurd. This, of course, has absolutely no bearing on Orly Taitz's notability (or lack thereof). —David Levy 14:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is worth noting that the article has already been recreated, and reverted in about an hour. Dems on the move (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the current setup includes no technical means of preventing that (and the revision history's deletion increases the likelihood of unsourced material being introduced). —David Levy 16:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - I don't like the direction this stretches BLP1E in. Since Taitz has made no attempt to maintain a low profile, and there's plenty of reliable sources mentioning her, this should be a keep, or at worst, no-consensus-defaulting-to-keep. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you. Here is BLP1E: I have bolded the parts that do NOT apply: Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. It even goes on to say something that explicitly does apply: If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. I'm not sure how anyone can interpret BLP1E as stating that this article should not be here. Luminifer (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I didn't participate in this AfD, and I think there were valid policy arguments for both positions, which were well-expressed on both sides. But the consensus, if any, tended toward keep. Thus, even though I personally think there's a good argument that Taitz may, in fact, be covered by BLP1E, I think that Hullaballoo is right when xe says that the closure should not substitute the administrator's judgment for the expressed and reasonable consensus interpretation.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse closure per BLP1E, but, as I said in the AfD debate, I have no prejudice against recreation if she stays in the news for an extended period of time (note that for the reason of possible recreation, I would have preferred redirection without deletion, but that is neither here nor there). youngamerican (wtf?) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse for now - I'm not overly opposed to reconsidering it in the future, but searching g-news for Orly Taitz, excluding "Obama" returns basically nothing, so I'm not overly inclined to believe there is anything to be said apart from the birther article. --B (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but what if you search for "John Hinckley" and exclude "Reagan"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been a gracious plenty news about him subsequent to Reagan assassination attempt. Granted, if not for the attempt, he would probably not be notable, but if nobody cared about him subsequent to the attempt, I would argue that he didn't need an article either. If, after the Obama conspiracy theories have gone the way of the budget surplus, people still care about Orly Taitz, then, and only then, would an article be appropriate. Until then, there is nothing to say not covered by the main article. --B (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be true, but I would bet every appearance of his name at least mentions, in passing, the Reagan shooting. Likewise, even if Taitz is being mentioned in some other context, the name "Obama" is very likely to turn up somewhere in the text. Luminifer (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak overturn - I'm very concerned that people are ignoring the plain language of WP:BLP1E, which has been quoted in full here more than once. I would also add that BLP1E is a subhead under "Presumption in favor of privacy." It primarily exists to protect low profile individuals, which the subject clearly isn't. That said, there may be a case against the article based on WP:N which says "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability - particularly for individuals known for one event." I'd like to see the article reconsidered on WP:N ground alone. --agr (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another note from closing admin I've given it some thought, and since she isn't that far off in my opinion from having an article of her own, I have no objection to David Levy's proposal. Blueboy96 19:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would strongly advise against that. I'm looking at the last version of the article prior to deletion and it's pretty bad from a BLP standpoint. If this is ever recreated, I think rebooting it from scratch would be a good idea. --B (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn or at the very least go with David Levy's proposal. The whole thing is getting silly: the name is all over the news and I'm sure there are thousands of people searching for her name on Wikipedia and expecting a basic article. They end up with a page from which it's difficult to gather information about her. There are decent sources available for an article (say [1] for an account of her career and many many many sources for her current role in the birther delirium). I feel as though the deletion is a knee-jerk reaction to Mrs. Taitz' craving for attention. True, she is irritating and I'm baffled by the amount of publicity she's able to generate for herself but the current redirect is akin to redirecting Joe the Plumber to McCain's presidential campaign. An article is warranted here. It has to be monitored of course and it has to be kept short until extended details of her career are examined by various reliable outlets. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just reread the discussion and looked at the deleted article and I'm thoroughly convinced that recreating the article is the right thing to do and wanted to address a few of the arguments for endorsing the deletion. First off, David Eppstein's reasoning that it should be endorsed because it was in the "discretion range" is somewhat twisted. Yeah, yeah, DRV is not a second AfD and everything but come on: one admin made a call and we should be supportive no matter how it turned out? Surely we can revisit this in greater depth than by just backing whichever admin happened to make the call. As for the many references to BLP1E, I stand firmly with JamesMLane and David Levy about the distinction between "one event" and "one issue". This is not hair splitting. Activists are typically known almost solely in the context of the issue they defend. Part of the idea of the "one event" criterion is that any relevant info can be inserted in the article in an easy, natural way. In Taitz' case the issue in question has dragged on over a lengthy period of time and it is convenient and informative to present the chronology of her involvement in a separate article instead of peppering it through the one about the issue. I'm having a real hard time with Stifle's claim that this is textbook BLP1E. Low-profile individual? nope. One event? nope. Cindy Sheehan seems a pretty good comparable. Of course, Sheehan is not insane and defends what many feel is a just cause but that shouldn't matter. Contempt for Mrs Taitz, her motives, her media strategy and the issue she defends shouldn't factor into the decision. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the fact that this is not a second AfD debate, also note that some of the endorsers are treating it as precisely that; instead of addressing the issue of whether the closure reflected the consensus reached at AfD, they're casting the equivalent of "delete" votes.
- Conversely, the question of whether 1E applies is entirely germane to the deletion review, as the closer's rationale is based upon the assumption that it obviously does (and the vast majority of respondents therefore are wrong and have been overruled). I fully agree that responses based on a clearly false premise should be discounted, but it's been demonstrated that it's the 1E premise that's false in this case.
- While I assume that Blueboy96 acted in good faith, he essentially substituted his opinion for those of the respondents. Also note that he has apparently ignored several requests for an explanation of why he closed the debate after less than four days (and falsely claimed that five days had elapsed) instead of allowing the debate (which he has acknowledged was close) to continue for the standard duration of at least seven days. —David Levy 02:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Still, I think it's worth pointing out the limits of "not a second AfD". In cases where the outcome of the AfD depends so obviously on which admin pulls the trigger first, DRV is and should be an extension of the AfD. Or to put it differently: if anything, this AfD should have been extended, not closed early. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Excepting snowball closures, an AfD discussion is supposed to last at least seven days (and possibly longer if consensus is unclear). Given Blueboy96's acknowledgment that this was "a tough call," his decision to end the debate after less than four days seems rather peculiar and ill-advised. I'm troubled by his apparent refusal to explain his reasoning. —David Levy 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse as being within the grounds for an admin to interpret consensus. The close was backed up by policy and many of the keep votes were very weak. No prejudice against recreation when it is demonstrable that her notability isn't fleeting. ThemFromSpace 03:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Orly Taitz may be craving attention at the moment, but she has been verifiably in the news for months, popping up in news sources as far back as December. She has become famous in her own right and facts about her own person are well known, beyond her involvement in the "birther" movement. A redirect cannot possibly cover all verifiable facts about her, because they would be inappropriate for the article. —siroχo 05:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I accidently recreated the article (didn't check AfD beforehand) because I have been seeing her in the news a lot and wanted to know more about her. When I saw there was no article I created it. I think she does pass the notability test and 1E doesn't apply as she doesn't maintain a low profile. I also am curious as to who she is, her biography, etc. Based on this, I respectfully suggest overturning. Basket of Puppies 20:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Admin's decision ignores consensus reached on second AfD. --Tocino 20:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, in this context, the first AfD may as well be ignored as it occurred in January, long before Taitz reached what could be the height of her "popularity". Back then the decision to delete was correct, but this time I do not believe that it is.IncidentalPoint (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (I already !voted above): On August 3, after the close and while this DRV was pending, MSNBC devoted almost seven minutes to an interview with Taitz. This was one example of the coverage she received in connection with her latest court filing in Keyes v. Obama. If the deletion is upheld, it would not be bad faith or WP:POINT for someone to begin a new article about Taitz immediately. She's more notable now than she was on July 31. JamesMLane t c 07:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- agree, there has even been meta-news coverage of this msnbc interview. this qualifies as a new event and deletion should be overturned. Or at least redirect and preserve the history. That is the least you could do riffic (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What we're presented with in the interview is simply more of the same; absent Birther-gate, a subject who would be completely unknown. Readers who may search for taitz are redirected to the relevant Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, which notes her involvement. There are exceptions to the BLP1E policy, i.e. Hinckley, but this doesn't quite rise to that. And whether or not the history of the article is retained seems like a pointless side tangent to all of this. I have no opinion on whether that stays deleted or is restored. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing is pointless riffic (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, Hinckley is not an exception. If a person isn't low-profile, 1E does not come into play in the first place.
- Orly Taitz has received an extraordinary amount of media coverage, which she actively seeks. This does not automatically mean that she should have a dedicated article (and I'm not sure that she should), but it does mean that 1E isn't applicable (even if we broadly interpret "event" to cover "issue," which I strongly disagree with).
- Again, 1E is intended to protect the privacy of persons caught up in one-off occurrences, not to weed out persons who are simply not notable enough to have dedicated articles. We need no special rule for the latter.
- Why don't you address these points instead of claiming that your opponents "don't get what [you] have said" (a rather insulting remark). —David Levy 16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hinckley's exeption, that is what the policy is all about; "i.e. "this is what 1E policy normally covers, but even a person connected to one event can be notable enough for an article if the event itself is signifiant." If you need help interpreting BLP policy, Dave, then head over to their talk pages and ask for assitance. I have answered you several times over now, and your recent responses boil down to a Python-esque "yes it is! no it isn't! Is! Isn't". I don't have the time or inclination to address your tangents any further. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Hinckley is cited as an example of the type of individual that 1E does not normally cover. This is because 1E applies strictly to low-profile persons. Referring to "a high-profile individual whose notability stemmed entirely from one event," you stated above that "in most cases like that the person fails 1E," and this is verifiably false. 1E explicitly and and unambiguously applies to an individual who "otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile." And of course, it falls under the heading "Presumption in favor of privacy." Has Orly Taitz sought such privacy?
- The remainder of your reply (in which you once again assume that anyone who disagrees with you obviously doesn't understand) is rude and condescending.
- I'm here for the same reason that you are: to discuss this matter in good faith (and hopefully do what's best for the encyclopedia). As strongly as I've disagreed with you, I haven't once spoken down to you as though you were a child, and I would appreciate being treated with the same level of courtesy. —David Levy 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the closer has consented to the revision history's restoration. —David Levy 16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restoring the history is not pointless. It would facilitate the re-creation of a standalone article, if this deletion is upheld but another editor chooses to create a new article as Taitz's notability increases. JamesMLane t c 21:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (arbitrary unindent) I don't understand how Tarc can say with a straight face: "absent Birther-gate, [she] would be completely unknown". That's true of course and it's unlikely that we'll hear her thoughts on gardening or nuclear fission any time soon. But activists are always covered within the context of their cause. Flip Benham would be unknown absent the pro-life movement, Jody Williams would be unknown absent the movement to ban land mines. Taitz has de facto become the poster child for a fringe group which has nevertheless managed to create a huge stir. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion at the time - a redirect is appropriate here; she's an attorney, not litigant, and thus merely a spokesperson. I also back up the discussion, noted above, that since the end of July, she's been the subject of more interviews and is on YouTube. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. 1E. --Kbdank71 19:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you've read the above discussions and since quite a few have taken the time to dismantle the argument that BLP1E is at all relevant, it would be nice if you can give your thoughts on this rather than some abstract one-liner. It's patently obvious that she's not low-profile (which is half of the 1E definition) and it's not clear that she should be considered as known for a single event. I'm ready to listen to good arguments involving WP:BIO but the 1E invocations have been thoroughly discredited above. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - I tend to think she's probably notable enough to have an article, but that seems besides the point. There was clearly no consensus to delete. More than any question of whether this article should be deleted, Blueboy's deletion was a perversion of wikipedia process, in that there was clearly no consensus in the deletion discussion that the article should be deleted, and the only exception given to that is in a case where a "little known" individual requests removal, which, so far as I can tell, did not occur here. Maybe the article should be deleted, but Blueboy had no right to delete it given the facts as they appeared at the time. As such, the deletion should be overturned - perhaps it should be relisted, if people want to do that - there seem to be a lot more people here in favor of deletion than there were at the original AFD. (Basically - overturn and remand to the lower court). john k (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. WP:BLP1E's reference to an "event" can be construed broadly or narrowly. A broad understanding better fits the policy's underlying purpose and helps limit the growth of extraneous articles. Taitz's notability rests entirely on her involvement in litigating the President's citizenship; that can and should be deemed one event. Suppose that someone was claimed to be notable for their involvement in a lawsuit. That would certainly fail WP:BLP1E. Now suppose that the defendant in that lawsuit removed the case to federal court, but the judge bifurcated the case and sent some of the claims back to the state court. Suddenly we have two lawsuits, technically -- but does that help the litigant beat WP:BLP1E? Surely not. Similarly, Taitz's litigation. The fact that it has involved multiple lawsuits is like saying that anyone who ever played darts should be deemed notable on the theory that each time they throw something at the target and hope it sticks, that's one event. It's the game that is the event, not the plays, and Taitz's can be covered adequately at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm almost tempted to see the above as a sarcastic attempt to caricature the 1E apologists. I don't know where you get the idea that all litigants "certainly fall" under BLP1E. Is Norma McCorvey of no interest? Ernesto Miranda? Robert Latimer? Sue Rodriguez? All their cases followed tortuous legal paths. The darts analogy is even weirder. Hey, all these articles about baseball players? Get rid of them, they're just known for that one event of playing baseball. Nevermind the fact that we also have a few hundred articles on dart players. Why should we have an article on Chris Moneymaker? All these poker hands at the 2003 WSOP, they were just one event. And I know I'm repeating myself but "low-profile" is an integral part of BLP1E. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some misunderstandings in your reply, Pascal. I didn't say that "all litigants 'certainly fall' under BLP1E," I said that being a litigant in a lawsuit doesn't by itself convey notability. Of course that doesn't mean that a person can't be notable for something else, or that having established notability, their litigation should be excluded from their article. Some editors would point out that WP:OTHERSTUFF forecloses your argument about other litigants for whom we have articles, but having been critical of that essay myself, I will merely point out that your example of Ernesto Miranda illustrates my point. He may be notable for some reason besides Miranda v. Arizona, but he isn't notable enough for a standalone article simply because he was the petitioner in that case. Since the article makes no attempt to show notability independent of the case, I would delete and redirect; now that you have brought the article to my attention, I will likely propose a merge or nominate the article for deletion. Thanks for the heads-up.
- As for your baseball analogy, I don't mind changing sports, but let's get the analogy right. A career in baseball does not count as a single event for purposes of BLP1E. Throwing multiple pitches in a single game, however, is one event for purposes of BLP1E. If your sole claim to notability is that you played one game for the Cardinals, you are not notable. That's one event per BLP1E, and it doesn't change no matter how many pitches you throw during the course of one game. Tatiz is famous for playing one game: litigating Obama's citizenship. She's thrown a few different balls against a few different batters, but it's still the same game, and it'll still be the same game no matter how many balls (complaints) she pitches (files) at (in) different batters (courts). This is one event, just as Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was one comet and gets one article, notwithstanding that it arrived in 21 bite-size fragments. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... Baseball, one single game? Let's see... Charles Matthews (baseball), John Roach (baseball), Bob Daughters, Joe Cobb (baseball), Heinie Odom, Steamboat Struss, Twink Twining, Ron Wright (baseball) and of course everyone's favorite: Larry Yount, a pitcher who played in one game and did not throw a single pitch. Good luck getting these guys through AfD... (And I wouldn't put too much money on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernesto Miranda either) But ok, let's assume for a moment that you've managed to sway me about your one-event theories. How do you factor in the "low-profile" half of BLP1E? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem that dogs your main argument--Miranda, Yount, and the others are all just examples of the same argument--is that the premise is wrong. If these other similarly-situated people are included, you argue, why not Taitz? Stipulating that those people are similarly-situated, however, your argument only works if I reject WP:OTHERSTUFF, which I do, and if I agree that those other people should be included. I don't. I have no idea why we have an article on Larry Yount, for instance, and if I gave a hoot about sports, I'd throw that into AFD, too.
- As to the "low profile" language in WP:BLP1E, I take it your theory is that the language in the third sentence limits the language in the second sentence. I don't think so, but let's suppose you're correct: it's a moot point. WP:SINGLEEVENT, whence WP:BLP1E is a specialization, also applies to any article on Taitz, and it does not include language similarly limiting its scope. The maximum bite of your argument, then, is to reach the same result via a different policy, a position analogous to demanding the article be hanged from a nylon rather than polypropylene rope.
- Finally, even assuming that you are correct about Taitz vis-à-vis BLP1E or SINGLEEVENT, the articles on Miranda and Gideon are unsound. Whereas you can at least bolster your case for a Taitz article by considering each of her various anti-Obama activities as a single event, Miranda and Gideon are inarguably notable for only a single case each. Whatever SINGLEEVENT arguments apply to Taitz, they apply a fortiori to the two articles I nominated. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you missed something key: WP:SINGLEEVENT does not apply a blanket rule of non-notability. You're right that it doesn't contain the "low profile" language of WP:BLP1E. (And that's important for your argument, because I don't see any way you can get around the multiple uses of the phrase "low profile" in BLP1E, or any way to claim that Taitz is "low profile.") But it also doesn't apply the rigid "single event = non-notable" rule that you seem to propose.
- Instead, SINGLEEVENT takes an entirely flexible approach, noting that when someone is part of a single event it may be appropriate to have an article about the "individual, the event, or both." Which of those options to choose depends on the situation. So here, we have a high-profile person involved in a running political controversy (not...actually a single event, by the way), and actively receiving significant face-time in reliable sources. Under SINGLEEVENT, that seems like a straightforwardly notable person independent of the event, and the "both" option seems appropriate. --TheOtherBob 04:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. All of the above editors have made clear points regarding the inapplicability of WP:BLP1E to someone who is famous beyond the thing that made them famous, but I'll add to them. Let's start with an example. Mick Jagger might have become famous because he was the lead singer of the Rolling Stones. But he is now, nonetheless, independently notable. Why? Because reliable sources report on him independently. Because people know his name. Because people come here searching for him, and want information about him outside of his participation in the group. Redirecting to the Rolling Stones would be absurd. Here, Taitz is (unfortunately...) famous to at least some degree -- it seems like most people now know who she is. Her fame began with, and largely relates to, her participation in the Birther movement, true. But reliable sources report on her -- not the Birther movement generally, but specifically her. (Jon Stewart, for example, reported on her "interesting" mix of professions.) Her name is well-enough known that Salon.com used her (along with HFCS) as an example of a bogeyman in a recent movie review. People come here looking for information about her, independent of the larger movement -- or at least I did (and it sounds like I'm far from alone). These things strongly suggest that BLP1E is inapplicable -- that Taitz is not a low-profile member of a larger movement, but rather a fairly famous face who, yes, did become famous because of her participation in something else -- but now has been reported on independently by reliable sources and is independently well-known. These things strongly suggest notability. One final thought, since I've mentioned fame here several times (and will therefore merit someone responding with "fame is not the same as notability.") It's true that notability does not require fame -- random highways in Texas can be notable. However, fame is an extraordinarily strong indicator of notability. If someone is famous enough to be talked about on the Daily Show, and we judge them non-notable, we need remarkably strong reasons for doing so -- because people will rightly wonder what sort of digital encyclopedia lacks information about someone famous. I don't see any reason -- much less any remarkably strong reason -- to believe that someone as (unfortunately) famous as Taitz is non-notable. So I'd overturn this deletion. --TheOtherBob 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong overturn Is one event now one issue? If so, let's remove all the baseball players too. Come on, she's a very well known and when I started researching the birther movement last week, she was listed as a leader all over the place. Leader of a movement that has a massive number of articles is notable. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment/oppose strong overtur - what do you mean massive number of artilces? we only have one article about the birther movements Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. this is one article because it's is one issue, obviously Smith Jones 20:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that Hobit was referring to media articles in general, not Wikipedia articles. —David Levy 21:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ahh that makes more sense i think I understand Smith Jones 22:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you David, that's what I was trying to say (however poorly!). Hobit (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The AFD was closed in only 4 days, not the now standard 7, and if not against consensus then certainly with a debatable one. Especially given the way things are fluid regarding the subject, the most appropriate outcome here would seem to be Relist, not Overturn or Endorse. Rd232 talk 18:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support that. Your argument is very reasonable. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- its also impostant to point out that this is the second AFD that this article has had, and the first one resulted in delete. this culd be an example of WP:SNOW, especially since the keep votes were somewhat repetitive and specious and Wikipedia is not a voting democrat. Relisting may be appropriate, but it wil csontintute the unusual step of granting the same minor and relatively unimportant article three separate AFDs (or FOUR if you count Deletion Review), which is unusual and perhaps a little bit unnecesary since it will almost certainly be closed and deleted again by the same admin. Smith Jones 22:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think WP:SNOW really applies. For one thing, Taitz is getting more and more notable each time. I'm sure each creation is the result of considerable surprise that there isn't already an entry on here for her. I think you could even go so far as say the it makes as much sense to applyWP:SNOW to the creators of the article as it does to apply WP:SNOW to the deletors (especially if it were to be as you described it - the same admin deleting it again and again). Luminifer (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
