Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (aborted nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close. It's getting pretty late in my local time. Since two users both support reopening the 2nd AfD, I shall do so. Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (2nd nomination) to comment. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orly Taitz

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

Relist per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 31. Neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on – Would you guys prefer that I open a fresh 3rd nomination (as I have done), or re-open the 2nd one? I'm ambivalent. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question. It does make me wonder why we would (essentially) ignore the texts of people who already voiced their opinions previously. Would we give it 7 total days, or 4(old) + 7(new), then? Luminifer (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer reopening the second one. It will save some people the trouble of retyping their comments, even though others will perhaps strike through their earlier comments and come down on the other side. Either way, I'd give it 7 days from today. We aren't being graded on how quickly we can close these things, and this one has attracted far more than its share of attention from the community. JamesMLane t c 05:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.