Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 145: Line 145:
*'''Keep''' - She may be batshit crazy, but she keeps on popping up in the media. --[[User:Astanhope|AStanhope]] ([[User talk:Astanhope|talk]]) 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - She may be batshit crazy, but she keeps on popping up in the media. --[[User:Astanhope|AStanhope]] ([[User talk:Astanhope|talk]]) 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - She seems to meet the criteria for notability. [[User:TechBear|TechBear]] ([[User talk:TechBear|talk]]) 21:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - She seems to meet the criteria for notability. [[User:TechBear|TechBear]] ([[User talk:TechBear|talk]]) 21:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - Since she promotes '''many''' disparate conspiracy theories, some of which are only marginally related to President Obama, it would be entirely unsuitable to merge into [[Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories]]. She has become a notable conspiracy theorist in her own right. [[User:Stonemason89|Stonemason89]] ([[User talk:Stonemason89|talk]]) 23:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:18, 13 August 2009

Orly Taitz

AfDs for this article:
Orly Taitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)


Relisting per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 31. Briefly, subject not notable under WP:BLP1E and WP:SINGLEEVENT, as extensively covered in earlier nomination.

At risk of wandering from the topic, because the procedural history here is a little convoluted, I feel that should explain how we got here again. This article was nominated for deletion on July 31; when it was closed prematurely by user:Blueboy96 on July 31st, it was taken to deletion review. See [1] and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 31. It can be debated whether there was consensus at the AFD; it is inarguable, however, that there was no consensus to overturn at DRV. On August 8th, the DRV closing admin, user:King of Hearts, weighed the other two outcomes (endorse or relist) and concluded that consensus was to relist.

That relisting has yet to take place in any meaningful sense. Although King of Hearts reopened and relisted the AFD, it was closed again mere hours later by user:Jclemens. Clemens claims harmless error, but refuses to correct it. Yet error it was, for we don't know whether this would be a keep or a no consensus close, and that matters. It was also error because Clemens has a conflict of interest: he admits to inappropriately closing the debate early ([2]) with a keep that reflects his personal opinion as to the notability question at issue ([3]).

King of Hearts has said that Clemens' "early closure was highly inappropriate" and that the AFD "should not have been closed and should have run the 7 days" ([4]). He's right. That demolishes Clemens' appeal to WP:SNOW, since SNOW itself underlines that "[i]f an issue is 'snowballed', and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause." Both King of Hearts and myself have raised reasonable objections. What's more, even Clemens has admitted that he "made an oversight in the process" ([5]), "shortcutting the process and causing additional consternation" ([[6]). SNOW, by design, melts before such objections.

I have asked Clemens to make this right by reverting his premature close, and he has refused. Since if no further action were taken, Clemens will have unilaterally transformed the DRV result from a relist decision into an overturn decision, the one option that can't be wrung out of the DRV debate, I am manually relisting, per guidance from King of Hearts ([7][8]). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Respectfully, you're ignoring the fact that the last AFD resulted in a close decision, and that when that decision was taken to DRV, the consensus there was to relist. This IS that relisting. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy answer from S Marshall, hatted by the author. Edit conflict with subsequent remark.
  • Well, that combined with your courteous note on my talk page calls for a fairly complete answer.

    (1) I feel your response is predicated on the assumption that the last AfD was "close", and I do not agree.

    (2) Even though I was the one who suggested that a DRV closer should be entitled to relist, I do not necessarily feel that was correct in this particular case. I feel that the earlier consensus should have been implemented.

    (3) I do accept that you have a strong case for a seven-day relisting in view of the procedural issues, and I should be clear that I am not arguing for an early close of this AfD. My position is that this AfD should run for seven days—but that the previous discussions should have a strong influence over the result. (This is because I think procedural irregularities should not be permitted to prevail over a previous consensus.)

    (4) Where I do agree with you is that this is not an encyclopaedic subject. I also have due regard for the ingenious and well-phrased representations you have made about the need to delete it.

    (5) However, I feel the general notability guideline ("GNG") is passed in this case.

    (6) I think it is vital that we retain articles that pass the GNG. This is because the GNG is a very simple, relatively objective inclusion criterion and, crucially, any editor can determine for themself whether or not it is passed.

    This in turn means that an editor can write an article in the knowledge that their hard work will not be wantonly destroyed. In other words, the GNG is what enables editors to create material without going through a committee process first. I think this is an overriding consideration.

    (7) I therefore feel that setting aside the procedural matters for a moment, in this case the GNG has to prevail and the article should be kept accordingly.

    I am sorry that brevity has eluded me in this case, so I have hatted my own answer.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • [Reply to S Marshall: Just to clarify, my response is in no way predicated on the assumption that the consensus at the last AfD was "close." My response is predicated on the fact that the closing admin at the DRV thought that the consensus was to relist, and s/he was correct. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)][reply]
  • I wish that we could simply re-open the previous AfD listing (which should not have been closed in either instance) yet again. This is such a messy debate to needlessly rerun from scratch. —David Levy 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally agree, but Jclemens closed the previous nomination, no admin is goign to reopen it (that would be wheelwarring), and it would be inappropriate for me as an individual user to reopen and relist it. That leaves two choices: Clemens could reopen it, but even having recognized and admitted his error in prematurely closing, he has refused to. Renominating is thus the only option left. In short, I agree that it's regrettable that we have to do this, and wish that Clemens hadn't forced that on us by refusing to correct his error. I've raised the issue at ANI. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep 1) There's no reason that my close, which is independent of and does not rely on the previous DRV outcome, can't be taken to DRV, 2) I never said I would consider another admin reopening it if that was the consensus of a DRV of my closure to be wheel warring, 3) If no admin will reopen an AfD even after such a DRV, then it's probably properly closed to begin with. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fact is, Taitz is notable. She meets the GNG. Sources including Time, Esquire, and a bunch of local (Joplin Globe, OC Weekly, Phoenix New Times) and ethnic (Tablet) publications have covered her--not her role as a birther, her as a person. She's appeared on Colbert and other national shows. At the very least, she meets WP:ENTERTAINER #2 (Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. ) and WP:CREATIVE #3 (The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.) if we call the birthers a piece of work. BLP1E presumes the individual desires privacy unless actions dictate otherwise, and absolutely nothing about Taitz conduct indicates she avoids publicity--quite the opposite, really. Articles about Taitz continue to be published by reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Add to those references Salon (twice), LA Times, and the Christian Science Monitor. Note that they're starting to cover Taitz in clearly non-birther contexts, such as whether she should be an American Idol judge, and dig into her pre-birther history, such as suing her son's school. With every passing day, the prescient statement from WP:ONEEVENT becomes more incontrovertably applicable: "However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
discussion of the previous AfD collapsed
  • That's breathtakingly disingenuous. Another admin did reopen the AFD - and you closed it again! And for someone who is accusing me of process over product (and citing BURO at me on your talk page) to say that this should have been subject to yet another layer of process at DRV, instead of just having the relisting that DRV had already called for, is preposterous.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being wilfully obtuse here? King of Hearts reopened the 2d AFD after DRV concluded it should be relisted, and you closed it, prompting today's exchanges.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know King of Hearts relisted it before I closed it. While you seem quite willing to escalate things, you seem to have missed the fact that my close is subject to a DRV as well, just like the previous one was, as I pointed out and King of Hearts acknowledged as pointless on my talk page. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Hobit also noted that DRV was possible, and you specifically discounted it. Do you care to offer a new explanation of why you chose to open yet another AfD--over both Hobit and King of Hearts' suggestions--rather than take my close to DRV? Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. AGAIN. Seriously. Give it a goddamned rest already. You want my logic based on policy, look at the DRV, look at the 2nd AFD. This doesn't need any more discussion. O RLY? YA. RLY. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is not a procedural keep, and finally having something resembling a full 7 AfD for this article would be a good thing. Repeated interference with what should be an easy and simple procedure is creating needless drama. To go through the major issues: This isn't BLP1E since Taitz does not have a "low-profile" (the term used in BLP1E). She clearly meets WP:N. Moreover, BLP1E doesn't refer in the sense of being connected to a single event because Taitz has nothing to do with an event but is rather a spokesperson for a political cause. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatically agreed that this should be allowed to run the full seven days, and that it the "[r]epeated interference" by admins prematurely closing this AFD before its full run that is turning "what should be an easy and simple procedure ... [into] creating needless drama." Just let the dang AFD run its proper length and let the chips fall as they may! That's all that the DRV demanded, and it's all that's necessary. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, speedy close. A ridiculous waste of time. If the second closure was impolitic, the fact that the ratio of keep !votes to others was greater than 2:1, and increasing, so clearly supports the outcome of the second closure that expecting any other outcome would have been an exercise in futility; suggesting anything else would be "breathtakingly disingenuous." This nomination borders on being a tantrum. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again Didn't we just vote to keep this just yesterday? Why is this brought up yet again and within a day of the last one being closed? Brothejr (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is fully explained in the nomination. The last one was taken to DRV, which resulted in a consensus to relist. This nomination is that relisting. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, immediate and speedy close I am growing a little concerned at how many times we have had this discussion. It seems that the consensus and policy is that she is notable and thus worthy of an independent article. Basket of Puppies 00:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not if people stop trying to speedy it or prematurely close it, no. This situation is the result of two mistakes, the premature closing of the AFD followed by Blueboy96 and the subsequent premature closing of the relisted AFD by JClemens. If they had both let it have its proper run (or if Clemens had taken the steps required by good faith after acknowledging his mistake, viz. undonig the premature close), we wouldn't be here again. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that not one editor (aside from you as nominator) has yet supported deletion in this AfD is prima facie evidence that my previous close was reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that even editors who disagree with me about her notability have argued for letting this AFD have its full seven day run is prima facie evidence that your previous close was wrong. Relist was the DRV consensus, relist should have been the result. Your attempt to squelch that should not be allowed. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please stop the incivility and personal attacks. No "attempt to squelch" exists. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any contentious AFD, particularly one where an early close has been overturned at DRV, should ALWAYS be allowed to run to completion. A speedy/snowy keep should only be used in non-controversial cases. --B (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Please just allow the article to develop. She has already received extensive coverage and is not hiding from the public eye...so keep, and let the article develop from a stub. IncidentalPoint (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given up caring one way or the other but the speedy close was found by a DRV to be inappropriate. I strongly suggest that no admin attempt to speedy close this one - let the process run itself through, then deal with it. --B (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - this is getting silly. this is the fourth WP:AFD, that has been inflicted by the deletionists. It appears that the strategy is to simply list this over and over until an admin deletes it. then we'll just go to deletion review and do this dance again. I favor deletion simply to break this deadlock and brevent this from happening everyday forever. [[User:Smith Jones] 02:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That's a little deceiving. It was deleted once, then should have been deleted G4 upon recreation, but instead was AFD'd and has been speedilly closed twice. The proper course of action is to allow an AFD to run to completion. This is why we have processes. --B (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To repeat my argument from the deletion review: 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 02:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons I expressed three times already. As an initial matter, a famous person is generally notable. Taitz is famous, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. It's therefore extremely likely that she's notable -- we'd need some very strong reason not to consider her so. The re-nominator offers two arguments against notability -- BLP1E and SINGLEEVENT. As was previously explained, BLP1E is inapplicable when a person actively seeks fame. BLP1E is a rule that protects private, low-profile, living persons from having their lives unfairly publicized. Anyone think Taitz wants to avoid publicity? Anyone think she's trying to keep a low profile? If not, then we need not protect her privacy by avoiding an article about her. Unlike BLP1E (which is just flatly inapplicable here), we might legitimately consider WP:SINGLEEVENT. However, there are three problems with applying that here to avoid notability. First, Single Event is a flexible rule, which allows for an article about "the individual, the event, or both" -- so even if it applied, it wouldn't tell us that she's non-notable. Second, Single Event is explicitly a balance whereby a person with a significant role in a major event is likely to have their own article -- Taitz here has played such a role. And, of course, third...what event? Her first lawsuit? Her second? The time she went on MSNBC? The Birther movement is not an "event," but rather a movement (misguided though it may be). So there's no reason to apply Single Event in the first place -- and even if we did, it would nonetheless still lead to Taitz having an article. Finally, a personal note...I got pulled into this debate because I wanted information on Taitz and couldn't find it on here. When random searchers want someone on Wikipedia and can't find it, that's generally a bad thing. We can toss around policy all day -- but our guiding principle should be "provide information about subjects that people want to learn about." If we get that wrong, all the rest really doesn't matter. --TheOtherBob 02:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories; this article is a textbook BLP1E, in that she is a marginally notable figure which is only notable for one thing: her crusade to get Barack Obama lynched for being a negro disqualified from the presidency. Therefore, the best course of action is deletion or merging. Also, I implore the closing admin to disregard any !votes about the process; the DRV was filed because the discussion was shortcutted, and the consensus there was to relist it for the full seven days, which is not what happened. As AFD#2 was prematurely closed again, this is the relist that the DRV mandates, so should be immune from NOTAGAIN arguments. Sceptre (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep consensus established multiple times to have an article about her. There is sufficient information on this article for this increasingly notable subject. --Tocino 04:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies here at all. Here's what it says: "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." (italics in original) One event does not mean one issue and she has hardly remained low profile. --agr (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (my text from deletion contesting argument, more or less): 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. If we do not have this article for her, many will wonder why wikipedia is missing an article on a woman getting so much news coverage. Luminifer (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the keep arguments from this and the 2nd AFD, and the overturn arguments in the DRV, without restating them. Meets notability requirements (unfortunately) and is clearly not a BLP1E candidate, again based on previous arguments. — Becksguy (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep. If deleting, not under BLP1E: Per BLP1E, "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." That does seem to be the case to me. Whether sufficient RSs are available for an article, I don't know. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep BLP1E arguments have been thoroughly debunked. Orly Taitz has been wasting everyone's time on tv and now, she's wasting everyone's time on wiki. Give it a rest people, we don't want to put the GNAA record at risk. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • She is wasting everyone's time here? I wasn't aware that she was a Wikipedian. --B (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I was trying to resist pointing a finger at wikipedians. :-) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • At this point, it is obviously going to get kept, but please, for the love of all things holy, let the thing run the full week. If someone else takes the ill-conceived action and shuts off debate, it's only going to result in another DRV, another overturn for incorrect process, and another AFD. This article has been through an AFD delete, an AFD snowy delete, a DRV overturning it, and a snowy keep on the resumed AFD. If the last two AFDs had followed process and been allowed to run for the full week, this would be over with. Short circuiting the process on a disputed AFD only results in moar drama. --B (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- BLP1E refers to "otherwise low-profile" people, and Taitz is demonstrably not low-profile. As she is covered in multiple reliable sources, there's no reason to delete or merge her, misguided as she may be. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unfortunately, sometimes people with unique viewpoints on the world become notable, and that's the case with this subject. Enough media coverage to make an article appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my arguments in the DrV. Also per SarekOfVulcan who managed to say all the right things in a lot less space than I. Hobit (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it looks like a snowball keep at this point given the votes, whether or not I would agree with it. Is there any serious BLP concern relating to harm to the subject of the article? That's the only thing that would overturn a consensus I guess. I am concerned that the sourcing is fairly weak - a couple personal profile type articles in the Orange County register, plus a number of unreliable sources. Assuming the article will stay I think job one is to integrate some other sources - I see this individual has been written up in Time, Christian Science Monitor, and plenty of other places.[9] No offense to the OC record and it's fine as a source, but it is a single, regional paper. Adding these other sources conveys a wider notability. Personally I don't think BLP1E applies because that's for a single news-ish, ephemeral event. A person can well be notable for starting a movement, being a primary advocate of a position, filing a lawsuit, starting a blog, etc. Those things persist in time, perhaps not forever, but not just the day's news. Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but leaving it open for a week would be a fair compromise. riffic (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'd think anything over 2 days would be reasonable, as long as the closer reviewed AfD#2 as part of their close. Anybody agree with me here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse the proposal that the closing admin treat this discussion as an extension of AfD#2 when closing. I'm ambivalent about, but lean against, allowing an early close if that happens. Personally, I would accept that as a compromise, but I'm not the only person involved, and as we've been over many times these last few days, premature closes are exactly what created this mess. I think no matter what result comes out of this AFD, as Arnold says immediately below, we have to let it run its full seven days. As I said, though, I very much favor the proposal that the closing admin take into account AfD#2, because that would undo the effect of Clemens' premature close. How do we enforce that?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the closing admin should consider the entirety of the discussion on this issue (and assume they will do so). But, like Simon, I don't see any harm in leaving this open for seven days (or longer, if needed). Although I think we could make technical arguments about this being a continuation of the second AfD, and the time period therefore running from one date rather than another...why argue about something like that? The consensus thus far seems to be "keep" -- so anyone interested in improving the article shouldn't need to wait for the close to do so. The discussion is civil, and not disruptive to anything. So I don't see any benefit to an early close -- my opinion is that we should just let it run its course. --TheOtherBob 15:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, no, no, no, no. Please let this run its course. We only shoot ourselves in the foot by trying to shortcut this AFD. What is the cost of letting this sit for a week vs. yet another DRV-relist cycle? --agr (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball and speedy closes are for non-controversial deletion discussions only. This is controversial, by definition, since there is controversy over it. So, let it continue the full seven days, painful as that may be. Please no more drama. —Becksguy (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what controversy is that? Not being pedantic here, but I've only seen concern over the process and zero (zip, zilch, nada) on the outcome. If the outcome is not in question, why should this be kept open? Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were quite a few delete and redirect opinions on the first and second AFD nominations and endorsements of the delete close at the DRV. The purpose of our standard one week duration is to give everyone a chance to have their say. Let's err on the side of following normal process.--agr (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trainwreck This has been to AfD, to DRV, reopened at AfD, closed, and now opened as a separate discussion. I'm heartily sorry for bringing this to AfD at all when it was still in the news, and promise to refrain in the future. Let's just keep this time and we'll revisit this article when the current "birther" thing has gone through its 15 minutes of fame, and memories have faded. RayTalk 22:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please refrain from such remarks concerning article subjects? It really isn't helpful and it also could be interpreted as misogynist. We don't need that. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for reasons given in previous AfDs that Taitz is still just a one-trick-pony. I don't know why there is now a 3rd AfD, and it seems this one is snowballing towards keeps more because people are just fatigued by the subject rather than an honest evaluation of the issues of notability. Meh. Tarc (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On what do you base this assertion? It's rather insulting to those of us who have opined in good faith that Taitz is notable. —David Levy 01:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, a "textbook" case of BLP1E would be a low-profile individual whose privacy would be unfairly invaded by a Wikipedia article because they have received coverage only for minor or peripheral involvement in a single notable event. (That's why it's a part of the Biographies of Living Persons guidelines, and not the Notability guidelines -- it's about protecting a living person's privacy.) A textbook case would be the guy who shows up in the New York Times talking about how his house was destroyed in Katrina -- Katrina is notable, a guy quoted for a story about Katrina is not. We might (though we shouldn't) twist BLP1E enough to fit in Taitz (i.e. ignore "low profile," read "single event" to mean a whole movement, take a different view of the purposes of the guideline) -- but a "textbook" case she's not. But that's not why I'm replying --rather, I just want to say that I disagree with the assertion that those editors working to improve the article are attempting to "pad" it, or that their efforts in any way demonstrate a lack of notability. --TheOtherBob 05:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view, but I disagree. "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." If not for the Birther carry-on, Taitz wouldn't remain "low profile", she would remain completely zero profile. Sources such as the Time 2 minute bio linked directly above my post have absolutely nothing to say about Taitz which is of any significance whatsoever apart from the Birther involvement. That's what I mean by a "textbook case of BLP1E". --Stormie (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To say "if not for the Birther carry-on..." is to invent a hypothetical scenario contrary to reality. To cite an extreme example (and one noted in 1E), one might as well argue that John Hinckley, Jr. would be "zero-profile" if not for his attempt to assassinate Ronald Reagan.
And again, 1E's purpose is not to weed out non-notable persons. (We have guidelines for that.) It's to protect the privacy of low-profile individuals who happen to have been caught up in one-off events (a description that doesn't remotely apply to Taitz, who actively seeks publicity on a regular basis).
If you dispute this interpretation, why (in your assessment) is 1E part of the Biographies of living persons policy (as opposed to the aforementioned notability guidelines)? —David Levy 12:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have already been told why Hinckley is an exception, and your arguments are bordering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory, I must say. Tarc (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is applicable when the editor is arguing a point against consensus. There seem to be a rather large number of people who see Taitz' notability as quite similar to Hinckley, and I see her notability as quite a bit better. It's BLP1E (event), not BLP1I (issue), and the intent of BLP1E is clearly to protect people caught up in a single event from invasion of privacy, not to suppress info on national figures. Jclemens (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I repeatedly noted that Hinckley is an example of someone to whom the rule doesn't apply in the first place (because he isn't "low-profile"), not someone to whom the rule applies but we're making an "exception." (In my opinion, your claim is analogous to the statement that "all elephants are African, and Asian Elephants are an exception.") You obviously disagree, and I won't construe this as evidence that you're disruptively pretending not to understand.
However, that issue is peripheral to my point, which is that it doesn't make sense to invent a hypothetical scenario contrary to reality (by arguing that Taitz would be low-profile if not for the thing that makes her high-profile). —David Levy 13:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry -- he's already been "told" that? That is one unfortunate choice of words. In any event, Hinckley isn't an "exception" -- he's an example of the type of person to whom BLP1E simply doesn't apply. Why? Not low profile. See also Taitz. Not all that complicated, really. --TheOtherBob 13:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Time bio is relevant because it gives information about her that's not directly related to her role in the birther lawsuits (she's a dentist, she's from Moldova, etc.). That reflects the judgment of the editors of Time that a significant portion of their readership is interested in personal, biographical information about Taitz. Such judgment by professional editors in the mass media is a key factor that we look to in assessing notability. JamesMLane t c 12:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you read it, someone's privacy can only be invaded by an article if they're famous for something other than the thing that makes them famous. That's like saying that we should not have had an article on Martin Luther King while he was living (not an otherwise apt comparison, of course) because he would have had zero coverage in reliable sources if not for the things he said and did as part of the civil rights movement. As a preacher in a small Atlanta church, we'd never have an article about him -- he'd have "zero profile."
The operative language is "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event." You'd read that to say that even coverage wholly devoted to the person -- even articles in Time Magazine specifically about them -- are not sufficient if their fame and that coverage "flows from" their participation in the movement. (I'll leave aside the problem of calling a movement an "event.") But that's just saying that if someone is famous for something, then they're not famous -- that they have to be famous for some reason other than the reason they're famous, or else they're not famous. That's not what BLP1E says. Rather, it says that if someone is not famous individually -- if only the event that they were a part of is famous -- and they otherwise keep a low profile, then we should respect their privacy. Here we have articles specifically about Taitz, focusing primarily on her rather than the movement, and she maintains as high a profile as she can possibly manage. In that case, we need not be concerned about casting false light on her or violating her privacy, and BLP1E simply wouldn't apply. --TheOtherBob 13:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Care to address WP:ENTERTAINER #2? Is Mick Jagger not notable because he's only an entertainer? Jclemens (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not convinced WP:BLP1E actually applies. This isn't one incident, its actually the same incident over and over and over and over again, ad nauseum. I'm going to use a bad analogy on purpose here, but its one thing to go out and brutally murder and rape a dead horse once. That's one event. Its entirely different to visit stable after stable across the country, repeatedly beating horses until they are dead and then raping their corpses one by one until there are none left to beat, murder and rape. At that point you've become some sort of serial horse murderer/rapist. JBsupreme (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean serial horse murderer/rapist/real estate agent/dentist? ;) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, everyone's gotta have a hobby. --TheOtherBob 15:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is extreme bad faith. you migth know that you are only joking about the horse rape/murders, but considereing that other scandals have erupted involving horse murders and politicians like democrat Senator John Edwards's former adulterous lover Rielle Hunter, dragging that up in relation to Orly Taitz is unnecessaryily inflammatory. I get that it's a joke but please try to focus on substantiative debates such as WP:BLP1E - which is agree that doesnt not apply to this articel. User:Smith Jones 20:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to allege bad faith? Perhaps you meant to write "bad taste." —David Levy 20:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing debates prematurely is what created this mess in the first place. As B has pointed out, let it have its full run! For God's sake, I don't understand what is wrong with these people who are desperate to close the AFD as soon as possible; I have to assume it's fear that if they don't close it while it's going their way, hordes will descend on the nom and vote the wrong way. It has been proposed that the closing admin review this nom along with the prematurely-closed 2d nom, and if that's what is going to be done - that's what should be done to vitiate Clemens mistaken premature close - there is considerable doubt over whether this is a keep or no consensus close. Either way, we should let it run and find out in the appropriate time.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if the third AfD runs a full seven days, is it not appropriate for the closer to consider any of the input in the second AfD, as a full set of more current input will have been gathered. Prior !votes would be "not in evidence" at that point. The assertion that a no consensus closure would be supported in such a case is... interesting. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What policy can you cite for the proposition that when an AFD is inappropriately closed, and then renominated subject to a DRV decision to relist, the closing admin may take account of the votes in the former if they close the latter prematurely, but may not take account of the votes in the former if the latter has run for a full seven days? Stripped of its rhetorical veneer, that is the argument of your reply. It makes no sense (for instance, what if the latter runs six days before being closed early - can the arguments in the former be taken into account, because it is being closed early, or not, because it has run for nearly seven days? Where is the cutoff point, and what principle undergirds it?), and unsurprisingly, is (so far as I know) cut from whole cloth, supported by no policy at all.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed -- this process isn't about rigid interpretations of what is and is not in evidence. Rather, the question the admin must determine is "what does the community think?" If other recent discussions inform that determination...great. Now, of course, there is at least some argument that recent developments in the discussion could make some of the previous views "stale" in some sense (that Time Magazine citation, for example, may refute arguments based on a lack of reliable sources). The admin should therefore take care to properly weigh older arguments. But that sort of balancing is (I'd submit) normal. It's far from unusual for someone to !vote early in an AfD, based on their current understanding of the facts, only to have some new fact introduced that refutes that view. Sometimes they come back and change their !vote, sometimes they don't -- so admins must consider the !vote in context and in light of the other !votes and the general discussion. That's part of why it's not a vote, but rather a discussion. I'm not bothered by that, and wouldn't be bothered by an admin considering the whole history here. --TheOtherBob 23:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The process to declare an AfD close improper is DRV. No DRV has been initiated on my second close of the second AfD, so it is inaccurate to call it an improper closed. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's astonishing that after all the smoke you blew about WP:BURO, you think you have credibility to assert that this should have been taken back to DRV after you strangled the relisting demanded by the first DRV in the cradle. Your claim that I should have done so is disingenuous; it takes no subtlety to see that if I had done that, you would have simply cried WP:BURO, and you would likely have been right to do so. We already knew what the DRV consensus was. As user:SarekOfVulcan tried to explain to you on your talk page, "when a DRV result is 'relist', and you close it early even so, it shouldn't take a second DRV for you to reverse the decision. That's needless WP:BURO."
It's also astonishing that you still don't understand that your closing was improper. I have now lost count of the users - users who support the nomination and those who oppose it alike - who have repeatedly told you (here, at ANI, on your talk page) that your decision to close was improper and unfortunate. You yourself have conceded that you made "an oversight," "shortcutting the process and causing additional consternation." That much alone would be reason enough for any reasonable admin to offer a mea culpa and make amends. You, however, seem to think that you'er above learning from your mistakes - or grasping that you have even made a mistake. You did. Your intransigent refusal to accept your error is precisely why sanctions against you were and remain appropriate; just because the community lost interest does not mean you are off the hook.
Finally, and speaking of amends, accounting for votes in the second nomination is an appropriate way to clean up the mess you have created. Many users who contributed in the previous AFD that was prematurely closed, successfully challenged at DRV, relisted, and then prematurely closed (and inappropriately SNOW closed) again by yourself, have not come back to participate in the third nomination. As user:Tarc noted above, much of what has and hasn't been said in the third nomination can be attributed to "people are just fatigued by the subject rather than an honest evaluation of the issues of notability." That is why the second nomination ought to be considered as a part of this one. It would be unfortunate for one misguided admin's misbehavior to be outcome-determinative.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure this is worth arguing about -- the closing admin will do what he or she will do. However, to your last point, I don't see any evidence that the consensus movement towards "keep" reflects one-sided fatigue -- rather than, for example, people simply being convinced by additional citations and/or the arguments in support of "keep." More importantly, I don't see anything supporting the assertion (by you or Tarc) that the many well-reasoned opinions above are anything other than "honest evaluations" of the issues of notability. --TheOtherBob 01:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that there aren't good reasons behind many of the keep votes - I had in mind the understandable air of impatience frmo having to reiterate views (for and against) that were already made in the 2d nom.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good grief. Editors on both sides of the debate agree that the closure was improper (and therefore condone this listing), and you even acknowledged that you erred (but then refused to undo your mistake). The idea that only a second deletion review could have determined this (despite the fact that the first deletion review had just resulted in consensus to relist for a full seven days) is more bureaucratic than I can stand. Frankly, comments like that only add insult to injury. —David Levy 00:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it precious? He has repeatedly complained that I violated BURO by challenging his close and renominating, and yet here he tells us that we should have engaged in yet more pointless (and pointy) bureaucratic process just ni order to say he was wrong!- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, David, while I agree that there's been some consternation involved with the SNOW close, the fact is that DRV is the process for the community to overturn an AfD close. Since my close was never DRV'ed, it has never been overturned and any allegations of impropriety lack any force of consensus. While given the previous DRV, consensus might well have been to overturn my close, it's a question that has never been asked. Still, it's not going to change the outcome any, is it? Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can't be established without bureaucratically following a formal process against all reason?
I actually hope that you're just BSing to save face, as it's much scarier to think that you actually believe that. —David Levy 03:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. If anything, the remark is satire, since if there's one consensus on the topic of Taitz that's already abundantly clear, it's that Taitz is notable. Since this entire process is a defiance of consensus established without bureaucratically following a formal process, the entire notion that a subordinate decision should deviate from such formal processes is really quite humorous, one you step back from the debate at hand. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I'm not seeing the humor. —David Levy 03:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we could agree that a well-meaning decision could be the right or wrong choice in a situation, without thinking that it must therefore reflect any impropriety. But more importantly, I hope we could agree that whether a choice was the right or wrong one is...really totally irrelevant to the issues at issue. Seriously, who cares? Let's let the debate run, decide the issue, and then move on with life. --TheOtherBob 03:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should care because Clemens is an admin. He has been trusted by the community with certain powers. When he abuses that trust - misuses those powers and point-blank refuses to acknowledge that he did anything wrong no matter how many users tell him that he did - we should sit up and take notice, because it tells us to expect similar misuses of admin authority in the future. If you don't think you did anythign wrong, particularly if you get away with it, you have no disincentive not to do the same thing again. Correcting Clemens' misunderstandings now will forestall future consternation and drama.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I've yet to meet the person who learned from a mistake when people (particularly people on the other side of an issue) were saying to them "you must learn from your mistake!!" Right or wrong, we're extremely unlikely to see any positive result from this type of discussion. Far better to call all things even, shake hands, and let it go. --TheOtherBob 14:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(In response to Simon Dodd's reaction to my WP:SNOW joke:) The "snow clause" is intended specifically to avoid protracted discussions when the outcome is already abundantly clear. The call by Clemens, although procedurally premature, was what was obviously going to be the outcome anyway, so by WP:SNOW the drama (and the ridiculous appeals to WP:COI) could and should have been avoided by simply letting things stand. Also, when I gave my recommendation the original nominator had already withdrawn their nomination days earlier, which normally would have meant a speedy keep.  --Lambiam 08:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orly_Taitz_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=307836496"