Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:36, 8 August 2009 editKing of Hearts (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators68,838 edits re-open AfD← Previous edit Revision as of 06:37, 8 August 2009 edit undoKing of Hearts (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators68,838 edits Relisting debateNext edit →
Line 3: Line 3:
===]=== ===]===


:{{la|Orly Taitz}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|Orly Taitz}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
Prod declined. Fails ], ]. <strong>]</strong>] 21:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Prod declined. Fails ], ]. <strong>]</strong>] 21:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


Line 74: Line 74:
*'''Keep''' I don't see how ] 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. --] (]) 10:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC) *'''Keep''' I don't see how ] 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. --] (]) 10:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
:It applies because she's only covered in the context of the birther suit, and she is otherwise unnoteworthy. --] (]) 15:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC) :It applies because she's only covered in the context of the birther suit, and she is otherwise unnoteworthy. --] (]) 15:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
<hr style="width:50%;" />
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ] ] ] ] &spades; 06:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (2nd nomination)|]|}}

Revision as of 06:37, 8 August 2009

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 July 31.
For an explanation of the process, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review.

Orly Taitz

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

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

Note: Earlier AFD nomination for the page: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Orly taitz, which resulted in deletion. Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: That was in January, and so we're looking at this again 6 months later.IncidentalPoint (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Not a voteIf 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 Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages 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}}.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
More media appearances means multiple events. Hence, WP:BLP1E does not apply. Dems on the move (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
Yeah. I was referring to Smith Jones' comments above. Crafty (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Keep Her colbert show appearance proves she is notable as a dentist and martial arts expert. riffic (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Keep The person accusing the president of fraud seems pretty important. 12.4.17.214 (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect or G4 delete. Hairhorn (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • rebuttal of presumple -
    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)
    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 Misplaced Pages, as prexstablished in order to relevant to her career as a lawyer and dentist User:Smith Jones 00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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

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)
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)
I thought it might be worthwhile to compile a brief list of others who appear in Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages will only fuel the persistence of this ridiculous story. Above all, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. -- Jeremy Wright (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete All conspiracy theoriest and theorists opposing President Barack Obama must be silenced! -Lapinmies 09:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
Witty, perhaps. Pointy, no; WP:POINT is about disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, and this opinion is not disruptive.  Frank  |  talk  13:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • Keep The subject shows up in enough press of late to meet notability. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.
  • 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)
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)
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)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions Add topic