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 keep Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orly Taitz[edit]

Orly Taitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Prod declined. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS. Ray^Talk 21:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Earlier AFD nomination for the page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly taitz, which resulted in deletion. Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That was in January, and so we're looking at this again 6 months later.IncidentalPoint (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Keep This chick is on TV EVERY DAY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.34.43 (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- continously appearing in the media and being the face of a movement is not 1E. Dems on the move (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 21:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 21:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is somewhat misleading by omission in referring only to her role in the Cook case. She has been the attorney in several other cases and has been frequently quoted in the media in connection with this issue. JamesMLane t c 22:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Remember, it's a stub and it's under construction. I plan on adding more details on Taitz ASAP (with proper sources, of course). Once I am finished, there will be no doubt that the article is worth keeping. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories per WP:BLP1E & WP:NOT#NEWS with no prejudice to restoring the article if she doesn't fade back into obscurity in a few weeks. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She may be a nut and a laughingstock, but given the detailed profiles on her in the OC Weekly and [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94377 WorldNetDaily], and coverage on the Daily Show, she seems to be a notable nut and laughingstock. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the OC Weekly, but I wouldn't click on a WorldNetDaily link if someone pointed a gun at my head and told me to or he'd blow my brains out. And that Daily Show thing was a one off bit, she'll be forgotten. Jon Stewart probably already has. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OC Weekly = free local newspaper. So it's not enough by itself. But I think combining it with the others gives us the multiple reliable sources required by WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. --TitanOne (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested by Youngamerican. Crafty (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom and what's been said. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I originally created this as a redirect, and I'm still not convinced there is enough for a full article. *** Crotalus *** 13:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I didn't find anything objectionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.37.105.105 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 28 July 2009
• Note to all those who call for redirect to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories: Sections in the article such as Philip J. Berg lawsuit and Facebook controversy would not be appropriate in the article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Therefore, it is inappropriate to call for a "merge and redirect". This is not the case in which there will never be enough information about the article in question in order to justify the article's existence. This AfD raises the question whether Taitz is currently notable enough to have her own article (a keep) or not (a delete). Dems on the move (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I question the notability of the lawsuit and her idiocy in being "honored" in getting facebook friends.--Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstood my message. No doubt that the facebook incident would NOT be a reason to make her notable. The question is: is she notable? If yes, then we keep the article, and the facebook incident stays (as it is notable given that the article exists). If no, then we can't merge the information in the article into the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. It would simply not make sense. Therefore, the options should be KEEP or DELETE, not MERGE (I take a redirect to mean a merge). Dems on the move (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, previous AfD - Note sure exactly how to make a box for it like you see in other repeat nominations, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly taitz (note lower-case "t") was the first go-around for this. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to a redirect to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, as it was until yesterday. As noted by others, Taitz does not pass muster of WP:ONEEVENT; absent her amateur interest in the Birther movement, Taitz would be absolutely unheard of. Minutiae about facebook controversies are not relevant to the discussion, and in the end really nothing new has happened since the initial AfD. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She has made a lot more media appearances and gained a lot more noteriety since the initial AfD. Dems on the move (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More media appearances and more alleged notoriety for the same, single event, yes. If anything, you prove my point even more. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from WP:BIO1E: "However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." The added media coverage since the last AfD is clearly an instance of her role growing larger. Whether it is large enough to justify a separate article is what we're discussing here, but it's far from the foregone conclusion you make it out to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More media appearances means multiple events. Hence, WP:BLP1E does not apply. Dems on the move (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, the event (Birther-gate) has not grown larger, though, it is only propped up by a bevy of non-reliable sources. The few RS that do touch upon it only do so to note the overall conspiracy/nutty nature of the movement, they do not give credence to the allegations, and Taits is not the focus of their reporting. Taitz is not the leader of the Birther movement and has been actually condemned by other Birthers for going too far on occasion. She is, ultimately, a bit player in all of this, and unworthy of mention beyond what is already in the main conspiracy article. Contrast her to the likes of Philip J. Berg, who has been involved in several high-profile conspiracy movements. He is more than worthy of his article. "Dems on the move" here does not appear have a very firm grasp on BLP policy. Tarc (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tarc, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I came across her first in an AP article, and then on NPR before coming to her page and seeing this AFD notice. Taitz is part of the continuing controversy and mentioned by reliable sources. Mattnad (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep she's notble.[1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep/Speedy Keep this afd clearly vioaltes WP:NOTAGAIN, a pointy abuse of process that may have inadvenretently heibvhtened hostilities and led to repeated attempts to delete an article until they are deleted by mistake. very clever, but not going to work here i'm afraid. happy editing!!! User:Smith Jones 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Er, what? The first AfD closed as a delete on Jan 19, and a redirect to the conspiracy article was created on Feb 25. What process has been abused, and what are these "repeated attempts" ? Your comment is rather puzzling. Tarc (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies i misinterpreted that AFD article, but even so there have been repeated atemtpst to against this article on both its branched article and on the previous AFD and I feel that its unfair and somehwat biased against the subject, since it is clearly notable and covered in multiple independent, prominent sources. quite frankly, i think that this article is an assett and not a liability to Wikipedia as a whole and quite frankly it is as important as the article from which it was originally progenited, regarding Barack Obamas conspiracy theories against his citizenship/eligibilty to the Presidenthood. does that clear it up?? User:Smith Jones 21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She's on television frequently. Chip Unicorn (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Certainly a noteworthy figure at this time.IncidentalPoint (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She wouldn't be the only disagreeable opportunistic charlatan to be memorialized on WP. She's achieved both "notoriety" and "notability."--Mack2 (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly notable. I disagree that the nomination is pointy, however. Crafty (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the nomination is in good faith, even though I disagree with the nomination. In my opinion, WP:BLP1E applies to people who have had their 15 minutes of fame, not to people who receive the limelight for a prolonged period of time. The nominator and a few others have a different opinion, and that is why we are having this AfD. Perfectly legitimate. Dems on the move (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I was referring to Smith Jones' comments above. Crafty (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The face of a movement that's a year old and only getting more famous is so far from a "one event" situation. Besides, there's several other sourced issues she's involved with. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Her colbert show appearance proves she is notable as a dentist and martial arts expert. riffic (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to other media appearances and citations, she has also participated in at least one NPR talk show. Clearly notable and this issue won't go away for a while. Granted she is known for one thing, but there are so many articles about B and C list people who are less prominent than she. Mattnad (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The person accusing the president of fraud seems pretty important. 12.4.17.214 (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or G4 delete. Hairhorn (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a classic example of the type of article we should not have, and a classic BPL1E violation. Appearing on TV does not make one notable. At best this should be a redirect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• rebuttal of presumple - [[WP:BLP1E][ does not revert to this. by your logic, we should delete Barack Obama because hes only notable for being elected to public office which is one event. thats just silly and not what BLP1E sahould be interperted to mean. ORly Taitz is clearly famous, not just for ther birther movement but for the ensuing controversies and the polcitial beliefs and the prominence as a lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court, which is a limited honor granted only to very few members of hir profession User:Smith Jones 23:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The comparison with Obama is inapt. He was elected to U.S. Senate from Illinois (most U.S. Senators have articles in WP), then to the Presidency. First became widely known in his speech to Dem National Convention in 2004. WP's bio on him first appeared in March 2004. --Mack2 (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  precisely. Obama was only first knwon for that speech. if we had been interpreting BLP in the way this is now, we would have deleeted his article then and then had to create it from scratch once his prominence was reestablished. by keeping orly taitz now, we have this article and can keep adding to it based on her current notability as being currently devoloped within the criterion of the laws of Wikipedia, as prexstablished in order to relevant to her career as a lawyer and dentist User:Smith Jones 00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't delete articles about state senators, and anyway you're getting quite far off-topic: this has little or nothing to do with the present deletion nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories; if by chance there is any content worth keeping, integrate it into that article. Conspiracy theorists generally aren't notable for that, and people who achieve some measure of celebrity are not automatically notable.  Frank  |  talk  01:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, perhaps merge one or two bits to the conspiracy theories article. References are all weak (two cites from an advertising throwaway, one from a smalltown paper that was mostly not about her, and her blog), notability is in serious question. The whole "Facebook" graf is spurious, as is the pointer to her non-notable dental practice. Thousands of lawyers are qualified to address the Supreme Court; that's not notable either. PhGustaf (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is crazy! she is CLEARLY notable and she is not only qualifed but has argued this isue before the supreme court, making her THE MOST PROMINENT birther. to tdelete her is to delte the Barack Obama citizenship conspriacy theories aritcle which wuld be a cryinzg shame and a bad id Smith Jones

KEEP! So far, I've seen her on Colbert and Jon Stewart, and heard mention of her on several prominent news outlets. The woman is clearly noteworthy. She is also clearly a whackadoodle, but frankly, I think the fact that anyone could be smart enough to make it through both dental school and law school and still dumb enough to believe what she's saying about Obama, is noteworthy enough on it's own merits. It's enough to make one wonder if perhaps she doesn't really believe what she's saying, and is only doing this to get herself in the news enough (What's that they say about no such thing as "bad publicity"?) to become the Republican Arianna Huffington. Stephen Colbert hinted as much on yesterday's episode when he had them both on his show. As nauseous as she makes me, she's noteworthy, and she's not going anywhere any time soon. B7eema (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)B7eema[reply]

I'm suprised at the debate. Fifty, hundred years from now: student researching the first black president; interesting footnote about controversy re- birth, etc., a bit of background info on one of the more public faces in the controversy wouldn't hurt. Its not like wiki is running out of disk space or anything ... Of course I realize that my view doesn't count (as I'm not part of the Wiki cabal), but geez couldn't the effort being put forth here to remove this article instead be directed at something productive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.165.136 (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your view does count. There is no such thing as the Wiki cabal; on the contrary, anyone can edit it. Everyone's opinion is valued and welcomed here. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be worthwhile to compile a brief list of others who appear in Wikipedia whose article could be nominated for deletion based on the arguments I'm reading here (only involved in one controversy, "15 min of fame", etc.): Roy_Hoffmann, Anita_Hill, Juhan_Aare, Mary_Mapes, William_I._Robinson, Glenn_Kable, Bill_Burkett, Kenneth_H._Dahlberg. Don't get me wrong, the woman is whacked, but that isn't a reason to remove an article about her. Deleting her article at this point doesn't pass the "smell test" for the appearance of censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.165.136 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a serious difference between those individuals, given their involvement in their situations, as opposed to a lawyer bringing a suit and getting a little media attention in the meantime. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being on TV for a short but highly concentrated ("Warholian"?) period of time should not solely qualify someone to be notable enough for their own Wikipedia entry -- if so, the notability criteria need serious review. Once this whole nonsense dies down, the only information someone should need (or, less importantly, want) to be able to find about this woman in a reasonably filtered encyclopedia should be located in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, anything else is exorbitant. I might also add on an editorial note that, in my opinion, the mere appearance of her name on a site like Wikipedia will only fuel the persistence of this ridiculous story. Above all, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. -- Jeremy Wright (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All conspiracy theoriest and theorists opposing President Barack Obama must be silenced! -Lapinmies 09:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the bait. You're actually being terribly witty and really clever and using your !vote to object to this AfD, am I right? ;) Crafty (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Witty, perhaps. Pointy, no; WP:POINT is about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and this opinion is not disruptive.  Frank  |  talk  13:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casting a sarcastic vote to protest against the evil and allmighty COLD (Cabal of Obama-Loving Doom) is about as pointy as one can get around here. Tarc (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I personally regard Ms. Taitz's arguments as absurd, but that doesn't make her any less notable. —David Levy 14:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject shows up in enough press of late to meet notability. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep May well be a crackpot, but a notable one, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. We only feed the conspiracies by trying to treat people involved with these theories differently from other articles. Alansohn (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I fail to see why the BHO Citizenship Conspiracy Theories page passes muster. It is BY FAR the most biased and defamatory page on the entire Wikipedia. Redirecting Dr. Taitz to that page is an obvious attack on her character. Killigan (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC) — Killigan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) 10:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It applies because she's only covered in the context of the birther suit, and she is otherwise unnoteworthy. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 31. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- To quote WP:BLP1E, "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." To be quite blunt, this woman is not even remotely trying to stay low profile. She's been all over the media, trumpeting her cause, even filing a "real" birth certificate, and gaining even more press because of it. I therefore think that BLP1E does not apply in this case, and the article should be kept. Umbralcorax (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While I despise this lady and the cause she stands for, she has unfortunately been given lots of attention by the media and meets the notability guidelines. XXX antiuser 06:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (I already !voted above): On August 3, 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. She's more notable now than she was when the AfD began. Also, on July 15, she and one of her clients, Alan Keyes, were interviewed by Lou Dobbs on his radio show. [2] JamesMLane t c 09:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The arguments under policy have already been made -- she's high profile, therefore not under BLP1E (which is, of course, a policy designed to avoid casting false light upon a private person who doesn't want to be in the public eye...a policy goal not exactly applicable here). I'll add only that she's (unfortunately) famous, and that fame is a strong indicator of notability -- if for no other reason that people are likely to come to Wikipedia looking to learn about a famous person. (Like I did. I was pretty shocked that I couldn't find information about Taitz here -- I was looking for information about her, but only got information about the controversy.) When someone searches for a famous person and finds that they aren't listed on Wikipedia, there's a certain "WTF?" moment that happens -- not to get too global, but I think those "WTF?" moments are generally bad for the project. Sure, we can explain it by saying to the person searching "no, you don't understand, she may be famous, but BLP1E." But the normal searcher will say "BLP what?" That person in that situation could certainly be forgiven for thinking we promote policy wonkery over common sense. So I'd keep the article -- generally we should have articles about topics that people are going to search for, and (based only on my own personal searching) I think this is one. --TheOtherBob 12:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:N (does anyone dispute that?) and in my opinion this isn't "one event" nor does it meet the letter or spirit of BLP1E as A) it isn't a single event IMO and B) this isn't an essentially low profile person. Hobit (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article subject is undeniably not "low profile," therefore BLP1E argument does not apply. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think BLP1E applies here, and she clearly meets BIO and GNG. john k (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She has attained enough notoriety to warrant an article and does meet the requirements of BIO. Brothejr (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only important as part of the Birthers story. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - WP:BLP1E is still more than applicable here...again, absent Birther-gate, Taitz is a dentist/lawyer-by-mail who wouldn't get within pissing distance of Wikipedia's notability. Hopefully the same, tired, flawed arguments against 1E policy from the DRV won't reappear in this relisting. Tarc (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone argued against 1E policy. To the contrary, many people made the point that it simply doesn't apply. Quick thought experiment -- what is the purpose of our policy on Biographies of Living Persons? What makes a "living person" different -- in WP terms -- from, say, a dead one (or a tree)? Am I wrong that we have this policy to avoid causing embarassment or harm to such a person (and potentially committing libel)? In particular, am I wrong that the goal of Biographies of Living Persons Section 1E is to avoid a particular type of tort claim known as "false light," wherein someone who is not otherwise famous suddenly has their life publicized without good reason? Assuming I'm not wrong about that understanding (and I doubt that I am), then the reasoning behind the "low profile" element of the policy makes perfect sense -- it's not a peripheral element or an "exception" (as I think you put it). Rather, it is simply the case that someone who casts light upon themselves (by actively seeking fame) is incredibly unlikely to legitimately claim that they were harmed by publicity -- to have a so-called "false light" claim. Therefore we need not worry about unreasonably publicizing details of their life. Therefore BLP does not apply. Quite simple, really. We might legitimately argue other policies -- and maybe you're thinking of some other policy when you're citing BLP1E (based on your comment, I have to think that's the case). But applying BLP1E to someone who spends their time actively courting fame...just makes no sense. --TheOtherBob 18:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As was stated during the deletion review, to point out that Taitz would not be notable "absent Birther-gate" (as you have done continually) is to say that she wouldn't be notable if not for the thing that makes her notable.
    It would be reasonable to argue that this thing doesn't make her notable enough (which I strongly disagree with), but interpreting BLP 1E as a rule that an article's subject must be notable for more then one reason is flat-out incorrect. (TheOtherBob explains its purpose above, and I'll note that he's an attorney.)
    Seriously, why do you think that 1E is part of the "Biographies of living persons" policy? Is it only okay for a deceased person to be notable for a single reason? —David Levy 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and build with care. Everything that needed to be said is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 31. BLP1E is irrelevant, one issue is not one event, Taitz is not low-profile, decent sources exist to build a reasonable article. And more than anything: the contempt most of us feel for Mrs Taitz should not factor into the decision we make about keeping this article. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - being famous for one thing is not the same as being famous for one event. BLP1E should not be used as a blunt instrument to delete articles - it should be used to delete articles about people who we basically have no sources for except articles that mention their involvement in a single event. This is clearly not true for Taitz, who has had profiles written about her, who appears on the news constantly, and so forth. An okay analogy might be to William H. Ginsburg, who is basically notable entirely for being Monica Lewinsky's lawyer for a few months in 1998, but who has an article (one considerably smaller than the one on Taitz currently is). People may not like it, but Warholian figures do qualify as notable under our current policies, and rules designed to protect the privacy of ordinary people who get caught up in major events should not be used to delete articles about fame whores we don't like. See also Joe the Plumber and Levi Johnston - Taitz has, if anything, courted fame much more aggressively than Levi Johnston, whose deletion notice was rejected on the basis that he wasn't "low profile" enough for BLP1E to apply. john k (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Somehow I don't think being an attention whore should be a consideration for BLP; wanting to be notable does not make one so. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but with all the coverage (and meta-coverage), she is. riffic (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you're missing the point -- you've got it exactly backwards. That she's an "attention whore" removes the concerns addressed by BLP -- she's obviously not harmed by the existence of a WP article if she actively solicits attention. Is she then also notable? Once we're comfortable that the article would not harm a living person, BLP has no opinion. (But that's she receives significant coverage by reliable sources strongly suggests that she's notable.)--TheOtherBob 20:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not missing the point, which was that self-promotion should not be championed when deciding notability. Tarc (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely missing the point. No one is asserting that Taitz's self-promotion makes her worthy of an article. We're saying that it doesn't make her unworthy of an article. And at the same time, it eliminates any possible concern that Taitz wishes to maintain a low-profile existence. —David Levy 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A person seeking attention does not automatically qualify for an article. BTW, calling here a "attention whore " is not exactly the polite way to put it and such phrase should not be used here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Again, no one is asserting that a person seeking attention automatically qualifies for an article. We're saying that a person seeking attention isn't automatically disqualified from having an article.

2. I didn't use that term. Did you mean to reply to someone else? (Your message is indented directly beyond mine.) —David Levy 20:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict). My apologies, David. My comment was in reply to the whole thread above.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying.  :) —David Levy 21:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc's use of "attention whore" just confirms that this deletion discussion is distorted by people's contempt for Taitz's cause, motives and modus operandi. I share that contempt but I don't see how it's relevant. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, Tarc was responding to a comment in which John Kenney used the term "fame whores." But yes, I agree that some of the sentiment in favor of deletion appears to be fueled by personal dislike of Orly Taitz (which I share as well, but which is entirely irrelevant). —David Levy 21:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this puts you on my trustable NPOV "high-list". With other words, you're on my watchlist by now, (in a good sense).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but redirect. If she gets news coverage beyond (mostly) partisan sources and more clear reliable biography information is released recreate.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erb? She's had coverage in the washington post, NYT, and a 7-minute interview on a fairly non-partisan national TV show. What exactly are you looking for? Hobit (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For "real" coverage. If it wasn't bc of WP I already would've forgotten about her.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you define real coverage please? As WP:N doesn't have such a requirement other than "non-trivial" I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I'm mystified that anyone is paying attention to her, she is getting noticed. Her appearance on The Colbert Report seals the deal for me as far as notability goes.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was on "The Colbert Report"? I really have to see this to see the magnificence.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets the standard as set forth in WP:N. BLP1E does not apply. Basket of Puppies 00:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My arguments at the DRV for the nomination apply with equal force here. I won't recapitulate at length what is already available with one click, by a summary is appropriate. WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:BLP1E cut strongly against articles for people whose notability stems only from a single event. The arguments for BLP1E's inapplicability are not persuasive, and even if they were, SINGLEEVENT picks up the slack. When both are taken together, they overwhelm. Taitz's notability rests entirely on her involvement in litigating the President's citizenship; "event" can and should be read broadly to deem that one event. Just as playing in one baseball game is one event, no matter how many pitches one throws or balls one hits during that game, filing multiple lawsuits that are functionally identical is also 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. She is not independently notable and doesn't merit her own article.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that they don't cut that strongly. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. No this person isn't an assassin, but there is large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. I personally think there shouldn't be that coverage and that the whole thing is silly, but the coverage is there in spades. Hobit (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has sufficient background information on the subject, who has been increasing her notability in American political circles whether we like it or not. --Tocino 03:22, 9 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.