- Michelle Obama's arms (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Ten months ago, when User:Prodego closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms and deleted the article, User:Prodego commented, "This is obviously not a topic that is appropriate for an encyclopedia."
I'd like to ask that Michelle Obama's arms be undeleted because:
1) There is no wikipedia policy for what is "obviously" a topic for the encyclopedia.
2) Here in the year 2010, the subject is still being covered by The Chicago Sun Times, The Daily Mail, Oneindia.in, The Australian Broadcastng Corporation, ABC News, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Wall St. Journal, Huffington Post, Fox News, and Fitness Magazine.
3) During the deletion discussion, some of the reasons given for deletion were that the subject was "trivial" and "just plain silly." These are not official wikipedia policies.
4) The subject meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability.
5) Wikipedia has a category called Category:Famous body parts which would be appropriate for this subject.
Grundle2600 (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. As pointed out at the top of this page, "this process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented". Stifle (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The consensus at the high-participation AfD was very clear that, at most, this deserves a sentence or two in the Michelle Obama article. The nominator's argument here seems to be that it deserves an article because it has lots of coverage, but this argument was explicitly considered and rejected at the AfD. If you think more coverage is needed on Wikipedia, then I suggest you try and get consensus at Talk:Michelle Obama to add it to that article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. There was a very clear consensus - numerically and argumentatively - to delete this article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There's plenty of RS coverage, and nothing about the article violated WP:NOT. The fact that it's a stupid topic is neither Wikipedia's fault nor concern. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree that the XfD showed a clear consensus. It was a mere "rough consensus", with valid arguments opposing the prevailing view. However, "rough consensus" is how these things are decided. I recommend that User:Grundle2600 should seek consensus at Talk:Michelle Obama for expanded coverage at Michelle Obama. It is the obvious venue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Encourage userfication. It is clear that the topic is consistent the letter of the rules, and multiple respectable editors support wider coverage of the topic, and there is unreasonable control of allowable discussion at Talk:Michelle Obama. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userficiation was tried for a bit in the past, which didn't work out so well. This subject matter is irredeemable. Tarc (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the subject can be made into an acceptable article, Grundle2600 can't do it, because it would violate his topic ban. --RL0919 (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse- the decision in the AFD was pretty clear. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as these are the same, tired, tendentious arguments made almost a year ago. Whether mentions of the "arms" were in reliable sources or not was never a point of contention. It is almost worth noting that Grundle2600 may have, once again violated his topic ban by even creating this DRV, and that SmokeyJoe should not be unhatting year-old conversations. If someone really wants to see the origins of this ridiculous story, they are more than able to click the "show" link. Tarc (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The AFD discussion was closed correctly, and userfication for a user who can't work on the page is pointless. --RL0919 (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Consensus and common sense both show that Michelle Obama's arms are not a topic for an encyclopedia. I challenge you to find an encyclopedia with an article on Michelle Obama's arms. Prodego talk 04:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse
block deletion, as above and WP:AN. Jack Merridew 06:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
