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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orly taitz[edit]

This woman is apparently an attorney for a minor politician. This minor politician has brought an obscure lawsuit questioning barack obama's eligibility to be president. While the lawsuit itself might deserve some brief coverage in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories this non-notable lead lawyer for the plantiff has no non-trivial coverage in any respectable television programs, magazines or newspapers. That is to say, though she is an apparent member of the california bar, her only mentions are on right wing blogs like worldnetdaily and her actual day job appears to be dentistry. Since she is not covered in any reliable sources sufficient to establish notability or otherwise make it possible to verify claims made about her, this article should be deleted. In other words, fails WP:BIO Bali ultimate (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand This woman has a remarkable story and is quite notable. Orly Taitz was born on the Romanian/Russian border, emigrated to Israel where she married her American husband. She became a successful dentist in Orange County California with two dental offices, and a licensed attorney in California and a real estate agent. Orly Taitz has filed two lawsuits associated with the Obama Eligibility Controversy, one of which is currently in front of the US Supreme Court. Dr. Taitz is developing a third complaint with former members of the US military as plaintiffs dealing with the Obama Eligibility Controversy that will be launched in several states simultaneously. Lawsuits launched in several other states are "clones" of the Taitz lawsuits, including complaints in Hawaii, Washington State and Florida. These suits have been nurtured by Orly Taitz. Orly Taitz has considerable mention in the mainstream media, as can be verified by some simple Google searches. Large numbers of reliable sources are available to verify this information. I have only stumbled across this article today and I am confident this article can be expanded sufficiently to qualify under notability criteria.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt i look forward to seeing some of these reliable sources that apparently establish notability and that you say are so easy to find. I can't find any.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not making a call as to whether keep or delete the article, but I have moved the page to the correct style for a proper name, with both names capitalized. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think deletion is the proper course. Being bitterly opposed to Obama is not enough to be notable. Nor is being a dentist. (One might even think that someone who is simultaneously a member of three such professions is not likely to be notable at any of them.) There have been repeated successful arguments that being a lawyer on even a notable single case is not notability; nor is running a political blog unless it is influential. I've looked at the current material on Google news, and I do not consider any item there usable as a Reliable source for a BLP article. I think it fails Notability, Fringe, and the current interpretation of BLP single event. I would object to it even in user space, because of the extreme unlikelihood of it ever being an acceptable article. DGG (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I DO believe notability can be demonstrated, but it will take some time and effort, which clearly has not yet been expended on this article. I personally doubt that the article will be properly nurtured in the mainspace under the present circumstances.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only activity of note for this person is serving as a lawyer for "notable" cases. They cases themselves have a page; that is sufficient. --Weazie (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick Google News search turns up articles in renewamerica.us, WorldNetDaily, NewsWithViews.com, Right Side News and SkyNewswire.com, but those tend not to be terribly reliable sources. I did find this article, which Google News claims mentions Orly Taitz, but the name does not appear in the article. That is the full extent of the notability I can find. As to my opinion, the US court system seems to be taking the speedy deletion process with Dr. Taitz's cases (appropriately, I think), but neither my nor the courts' opinions matter to whether she is notable. superluser_tc 2009 January 17, 06:59 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. She spoke to the National Press Club. Probably doesn't do much, since it's self-reported. superluser_tc 2009 January 17, 07:16 (UTC)

Just a quick correction. She spoke in a room that she and friends rented at the national press club (anyone can rent these rooms, so long as they pay).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I was wondering why they let her talk. superluser_tc 2009 January 18, 23:43 (UTC)

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. The person is not notable for anything except promoting a conspiracy theory. It appears that the single purpose account that started the article is attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't enough meat here to merge. Perhaps her name should be mentioned in the conspiracy article, but no more than that. PhGustaf (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability and a lack of reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But I hear that she argues in court as if she were pulling teeth. PhGustaf (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sufficient notability can be achieved. Grsz ¹¹ 23:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I provided 7 or 8 mainstream media references, including the Orange County Register, the Orange County Weekly and Salon. There are lots more that are obtainable with a little effort. (I disagree with the opinion about World Net Daily, which had an increase of over 60% in readership last year, in a period when all mainstream media sources are experiencing decreases in audience; for example, LA Times is in bankruptcy, as is the Chicago Tribune, while the Washington Post and NY Times are not far behind. Denver Post has had massive layoffs, etc).

I believe that there have been many more mainstream media mentions of Dr. Taitz. For example, Orly Taitz has been interviewed on one or two mainstream radio programs daily for weeks. And things are likely to accelerate, since Dr. Taitz has a case in front of the US Supreme Court and another one coming up in front of the California Superior Court in a couple of months, and is launching a massive new case or set of cases soon.

Of the 31 or so lawsuits that have been filed associated with this eligibility controversy, Dr. Taitz has been directly or indirectly responsible for 5 of them so far, with more to come. Even if you disagree with her stance on this issue, you have to admit she is causing waves. In other words, she is notable. And she is being recognized as such.

The 8 examples I provided were removed [1] and placed on the talk page of this page [2], with no links or mention of this on this page.

In addition, my attempt to expand the article itself was immediately thwarted [3]. As I said above, in the current circumstances, it would be difficult to build an article of this nature while under intense scrutiny. Articles on most subjects would encounter a more forgiving environment. Given the controversial nature of this topic, many here are letting their own personal political agendas get in the way of objectivity.

I will remind everyone commenting here that WP:NOTE does not mean that you agree with the views of the subject of a WP:BLP. The question is not, "Is this person correct?" or "Do I agree with the views of this person?" but "Has this person garnered any mention in the mainstream media or made any impact on the culture?". By the latter standard, Dr. Orly Taitz clearly meets the threshold. This is particularly true since this situation is evolving and attention to these issues continues to grow (I know, I know, WP is not a crystal ball).--Filll (talk | wpc) 03:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity of references is not the issue. WP:ONEEVENT means the notability relates to the event, not the person. It is not a good idea to post a wall of text at an AfD discussion. I am sorry for not leaving a forward pointer. That's a good idea which I will definitely use next time. Jehochman ^Talk 04:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Practically speedy delete. Anyone can file an appeal with the Supreme Court, so being the lawyer for that appeal is hardly notable. At this point there isn't any coverage of Taitz in reliable sources, so one has to wonder why this wasn't speedied, but since an AFD was started, round file the article at the earliest opportunity. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 11:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the dentist-lawyer had won any court case, or even headlined an oral argument in Supreme Court, a la Michael Newdow, a case for notability could have been made. But right now, the subject has received media/blog coverage only for filing an application in the Supreme court - an application that, by all accounts, is sure to be rejected, and thus leave no footprints in US law. All the references provided so far are non-RS and/or the coverage of Orly Taitz is only incidental. I don't see an argument for even referring to the lawyer by name in the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, let alone writing a biographical article. Abecedare (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, certainly not beyond the one event. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:36, 19 January 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.