Category:Political_correctness-related_controversies – "Delete" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 07:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Political_correctness-related_controversies (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I went to this page to add the current controversy over ESPN commentator Rober Lee and found the entire category had been deleted. Not sure why - also noticed it was not closed by an admin. Can someone tell me why this relevant topic was summarily deleted when it appears the discussion was among three editors who were biased against the page in the first place. Thank you. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] It was deleted because folks in the discussion unanimously considered the inclusion criteria too subjective which per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT is a legit reason for removing a category. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Endorse no other way of reading that CfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- consensus was unanimous and there was no other way the discussion could have been closed. Reyk _YO! 09:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, and would like some more details of the alleged bias of the editors that participated in the discussion. To my mind, Aquillion made a pretty good case as to why a category like this is always going to be a terrible idea. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC).[reply] Overturn. Political correctness is among the very top political issues in the United States. Donald Trump relentlessly referred to political correctness on the campaign trail and public backlash against political correctness played a major role in getting him elected. The political commentator and provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos who also relentlessly challenges various forms of political correctness recently had a book skyrocket in sales despite a leading publisher cancelling its contract with him. Throughout the world, the public is distrusting left/liberal leaning press outlets more and more and the political correctness of these news outlets is playing a major role in this matter.[1][2] So given its importance as a topic related to politics, Wikipedia should make it very easy for readers to find various controversies related to political correctness.Knox490 (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] If you want this topic to be covered, write the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - Obviously no other way to interpret consensus. This isn't the place to just continue the AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Comment WP:NAC clearly says non-admins are not supposed to make delete closures. However, as others have pointed out, there's no other way this could have been closed. If it will make people feel better over the improper NAC, I have no objection to a procedural re-open for an admin to close it as delete, but the end result shouldn't change. Smartyllama (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Endorse and if you really want an admin to affirm the closure I'd be happy to do so. The outcome was obvious from the discussion, as it was unanimous and the reason given was well grounded. I don't see any evidence or new arguments here which would prompt it to be revisited. Hut 8.5 15:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Political_correctness-related_controversies – "Delete" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 07:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I went to this page to add the current controversy over ESPN commentator Rober Lee and found the entire category had been deleted. Not sure why - also noticed it was not closed by an admin. Can someone tell me why this relevant topic was summarily deleted when it appears the discussion was among three editors who were biased against the page in the first place. Thank you. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because folks in the discussion unanimously considered the inclusion criteria too subjective which per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT is a legit reason for removing a category. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no other way of reading that CfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- consensus was unanimous and there was no other way the discussion could have been closed. Reyk _YO! 09:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and would like some more details of the alleged bias of the editors that participated in the discussion. To my mind, Aquillion made a pretty good case as to why a category like this is always going to be a terrible idea. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn. Political correctness is among the very top political issues in the United States. Donald Trump relentlessly referred to political correctness on the campaign trail and public backlash against political correctness played a major role in getting him elected. The political commentator and provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos who also relentlessly challenges various forms of political correctness recently had a book skyrocket in sales despite a leading publisher cancelling its contract with him. Throughout the world, the public is distrusting left/liberal leaning press outlets more and more and the political correctness of these news outlets is playing a major role in this matter.[1][2] So given its importance as a topic related to politics, Wikipedia should make it very easy for readers to find various controversies related to political correctness.Knox490 (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want this topic to be covered, write the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Obviously no other way to interpret consensus. This isn't the place to just continue the AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NAC clearly says non-admins are not supposed to make delete closures. However, as others have pointed out, there's no other way this could have been closed. If it will make people feel better over the improper NAC, I have no objection to a procedural re-open for an admin to close it as delete, but the end result shouldn't change. Smartyllama (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and if you really want an admin to affirm the closure I'd be happy to do so. The outcome was obvious from the discussion, as it was unanimous and the reason given was well grounded. I don't see any evidence or new arguments here which would prompt it to be revisited. Hut 8.5 15:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Norma Stitz – Inappropriate non-admin closure by KGirlTrucker81 (talk · contribs) (not the first that I can recall) overturned and article renominated. – Sandstein 13:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Norma Stitz (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Speedy delete by non-admin after no real discussion. My reasons were provided here. Hillbillyholiday (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close There was no real discussion because no reason for deletion was provided. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Re-open please Yes, I had forgotten to add my vote and proper reasoning. Apologies. This deletion should be discussed further. I'll reiterate my reasoning: Just because a person receives some coverage does not make them notable, nor does having big breasts make someone a suitable subject for an encyclopedia. The only possibly useable source I can see bar Guinness is Huffpo. And Huffpo is shite. Fuck GNG and PR0NNBIO. This article is an embarrassment. IAR and nuke. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure additional reasons supplied aren't viable reasons for deletion either. Meets WP:GNG. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] The nom is of course welcome to list this at AfD again. But please be sure you understand the basics of WP:DEL, WP:N and WP:JNN and express your arguments clearly with that in mind. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Self-endorse closure: Those sources are reliable and invalid reasons are provided. Just step away from the horse carrass. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 13:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] The Guinness Book of World Records only published information about Norma once in 2000. We do not know if she is still the holder of this "record". And there are no other first-rate sources that I can find. If people are so keen about following procedure rather than common sense, how about WP:BLP1E, the event being: she was mentioned by Guinness once. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] She's also been covered in a lot of news sources, some of which are in the article. Probably not a BLP1E. But again, I'd suggest you just withdraw this DRV and open a new AfD. I don't think it will get deleted, but the arguments you are making here are much more reasonable and won't be eligible for a speedy keep. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Overturn meets none of WP:SKCRIT, and the subjective determination as to whether something meets the GNG based one !vote is clearly not enough for a snowball keep. I have no intent on getting involved in the PORNBIO AfDs, and really don't care as to what happens to this article, but this was an inappropriate closure. The nomination could have been much better worded, but the essential claim is that outside GBWR there is not significant coverage: that is a subjective challenge to the article meeting the GNG that deserves to be sorted out in an AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] I get that and tend to not like speedy closes. But I do think it meets the first part of WP:SKCRIT: "fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection". The article has sources and even his later comment was just about how horrible the HuffingtonPost is--it didn't address the other sources or even indicate that he'd seen them. And that comment wasn't there when the discussion was closed, so the closer couldn't have taken it into account. I've no objection to a relist here, but I don't think the closer got it wrong when it was closed. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Yes: it was a poorly done AfD nomination, but it was basically a cruder way of saying not notable, which is also a horrible nominating statement, but I've seen administrators simply have that when they send some stuff to AfD and we don't throw those out. Trouts all around here: the job of the closer is to see any potential policy arguments behind the !votes (in this case that being noticed for large breasts is trivial coverage not meeting WP:N), and the job of the nominator is to lay out a compelling case for deletion. Neither was done, but it wasn't at the speedy keep level. Meeting the GNG isn't a reason to speedy keep, and it isn't the place for DRV to sort out the GNG arguments. Anyway, thanks for the reply Hobit. Always appreciated :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] The closure relied on WP:SK, ground 1: "Nominator fails to advance a valid reason for deletion". Strictly speaking, you could argue that's correct, but we're a collaborative encyclopaedia and I think it's implicit in our procedures that when you're dealing with good faith users, you talk to them. It would have been entirely appropriate to ping the nominator and say, "Hey, you've failed to supply a valid reason for deletion: could you come back and do that please?" Just closing it without talking to him at all is within the rules as written. But it seems quite rude. I wouldn't have done that. Maybe in the circumstances, the best way forward would be to allow an immediate renomination on condition that the nominator gives clear reasons.—S Marshall T/C 17:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] I think that's the best outcome. And yes, I agree the SK wasn't the most friendly thing to do and the best way forward would have been as you suggested. Given that nothing prevents a renomination after a procedural speedy keep, I'd suggest the nom withdraws this DRV and just starts a new one with a much better nomination statement. I very much doubt this will get deleted, but fair process is important to user retention. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Agreed that would be the least time-wasting outcome here: Hillbillyholiday, if you aren't following this, it would probably be best to withdraw and speedily renominate with a more fleshed out rationale citing policy and guidelines. You could note that the emerging consensus at this DRV was to allow for a speedy renomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] So I get "trouted" for not following correct protocol for AfD but I should pre-emptively re-nominate without the process finishing here? It's all rather confusing to be honest. I think it best if someone else closes this review first, and then I start another deletion request later (would it be the 3rd AfD now?) --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] It's simple: your deletion rationale was less than we typically expect from nominations, but people here also think that a speedy keep so quickly was probably not ideal. The suggestion is that you withdraw this DRV, and speedily renominate it with more fleshed out policy-based rationale for deletion: it saves the time of more people having to comment on the DRV and allows the article to be assessed at AfD. There is no prejudice about renominating it, and if someone brings it up, you can link to this discussion (or link to it in your nominating statement). TonyBallioni (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Ok, thanks for explaining Tony. Will re-nom tomorrow. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] The close here is technically valid but I suspect the nominator intended to bring up a notability-based argument which just wasn't stated explicitly. Given that they have now come up with a more suitable rationale I suggest we reopen it. Hut 8.5 21:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Endorse without prejudice to renomination. No reason for deletion given, so a close isn't unreasonable. Might've been better to point that out and see if nom adds something, but regardless, there's nothing preventing a speedy renomination without going to DRV. It would be pretty pointless, though, as you're essentially asking for an IAR deletion. Spending 5 seconds on Google shows she easily meets GNG. The fact of her claim to fame, as always, isn't relevant as it's only an indication the sources exist -- and they very obviously do exist. There's the BLP avenue, but she's clearly a public person. We have countless articles on things that one might prefer not to be notable, but that's not the point. Even without a Guinness record, there's far more sourcing than needed to pass GNG (and, of course, what's currently cited isn't relevant to deletion). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist, inappropriate speedy keep as the nominator did want the page deleted. I expect the article will be kept, but that doesn't mean we should skip process. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist. I wish there were a speedy delete criterion that would apply to this "article". A valid deletion reason was clearly implied, the general one of NOT ENCYCLOPESIC, and the more specific one of NOT TABLOID.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. One of the few sources given in the article is the Daily Mail. Wikipedia no longer considers the Daily Mail as being a reliable source and it is a matter of public record that it has banned it as a reliable source.[3] Besides this source it has a couple tabloid newspaper sources and a Huffington Post source. This is not really the stuff of notability via a number of reliable sources. Wikipedia does have the article List of tallest people. Is Wikipedia planning on having an article entitled List of women with the biggest breasts? Of course, the answer is no to this question. It would not be encyclopedic. And as noted above, The Guinness Book of World Records only published information about Norma once in 2000. We do not know if she is still the holder of her record. A lot can happen in 17 years. The world's population has grown about 33% since 2000.[4] When the last history book closes, she will not be in it because she is not a notable person. A few tabloid articles a Huffington Post and being in the Guinness Book of World Records once is not the stuff of being a notable person. Knox490 (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. It was clear that the nominator was arguing that the principal claim of notability was insufficient. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist. The nomination wasn't the clearest, but there was clearly an implied notability argument being made. Yet another example of why an SK is usually a bad idea and to be avoided in all but the most obvious of circumstances. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC).[reply] Article renominated @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norma Stitz (3rd nomination) following Tony's advice and the general consensus here to relist. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Norma Stitz – Inappropriate non-admin closure by KGirlTrucker81 (talk · contribs) (not the first that I can recall) overturned and article renominated. – Sandstein 13:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Speedy delete by non-admin after no real discussion. My reasons were provided here. Hillbillyholiday (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close There was no real discussion because no reason for deletion was provided. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-open please Yes, I had forgotten to add my vote and proper reasoning. Apologies. This deletion should be discussed further. I'll reiterate my reasoning: Just because a person receives some coverage does not make them notable, nor does having big breasts make someone a suitable subject for an encyclopedia. The only possibly useable source I can see bar Guinness is Huffpo. And Huffpo is shite. Fuck GNG and PR0NNBIO. This article is an embarrassment. IAR and nuke. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure additional reasons supplied aren't viable reasons for deletion either. Meets WP:GNG. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom is of course welcome to list this at AfD again. But please be sure you understand the basics of WP:DEL, WP:N and WP:JNN and express your arguments clearly with that in mind. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Self-endorse closure: Those sources are reliable and invalid reasons are provided. Just step away from the horse carrass. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 13:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Guinness Book of World Records only published information about Norma once in 2000. We do not know if she is still the holder of this "record". And there are no other first-rate sources that I can find. If people are so keen about following procedure rather than common sense, how about WP:BLP1E, the event being: she was mentioned by Guinness once. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She's also been covered in a lot of news sources, some of which are in the article. Probably not a BLP1E. But again, I'd suggest you just withdraw this DRV and open a new AfD. I don't think it will get deleted, but the arguments you are making here are much more reasonable and won't be eligible for a speedy keep. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn meets none of WP:SKCRIT, and the subjective determination as to whether something meets the GNG based one !vote is clearly not enough for a snowball keep. I have no intent on getting involved in the PORNBIO AfDs, and really don't care as to what happens to this article, but this was an inappropriate closure. The nomination could have been much better worded, but the essential claim is that outside GBWR there is not significant coverage: that is a subjective challenge to the article meeting the GNG that deserves to be sorted out in an AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I get that and tend to not like speedy closes. But I do think it meets the first part of WP:SKCRIT: "fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection". The article has sources and even his later comment was just about how horrible the HuffingtonPost is--it didn't address the other sources or even indicate that he'd seen them. And that comment wasn't there when the discussion was closed, so the closer couldn't have taken it into account. I've no objection to a relist here, but I don't think the closer got it wrong when it was closed. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes: it was a poorly done AfD nomination, but it was basically a cruder way of saying not notable, which is also a horrible nominating statement, but I've seen administrators simply have that when they send some stuff to AfD and we don't throw those out. Trouts all around here: the job of the closer is to see any potential policy arguments behind the !votes (in this case that being noticed for large breasts is trivial coverage not meeting WP:N), and the job of the nominator is to lay out a compelling case for deletion. Neither was done, but it wasn't at the speedy keep level. Meeting the GNG isn't a reason to speedy keep, and it isn't the place for DRV to sort out the GNG arguments. Anyway, thanks for the reply Hobit. Always appreciated :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The closure relied on WP:SK, ground 1: "Nominator fails to advance a valid reason for deletion". Strictly speaking, you could argue that's correct, but we're a collaborative encyclopaedia and I think it's implicit in our procedures that when you're dealing with good faith users, you talk to them. It would have been entirely appropriate to ping the nominator and say, "Hey, you've failed to supply a valid reason for deletion: could you come back and do that please?" Just closing it without talking to him at all is within the rules as written. But it seems quite rude. I wouldn't have done that. Maybe in the circumstances, the best way forward would be to allow an immediate renomination on condition that the nominator gives clear reasons.—S Marshall T/C 17:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's the best outcome. And yes, I agree the SK wasn't the most friendly thing to do and the best way forward would have been as you suggested. Given that nothing prevents a renomination after a procedural speedy keep, I'd suggest the nom withdraws this DRV and just starts a new one with a much better nomination statement. I very much doubt this will get deleted, but fair process is important to user retention. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed that would be the least time-wasting outcome here: Hillbillyholiday, if you aren't following this, it would probably be best to withdraw and speedily renominate with a more fleshed out rationale citing policy and guidelines. You could note that the emerging consensus at this DRV was to allow for a speedy renomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - So I get "trouted" for not following correct protocol for AfD but I should pre-emptively re-nominate without the process finishing here? It's all rather confusing to be honest. I think it best if someone else closes this review first, and then I start another deletion request later (would it be the 3rd AfD now?) --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's simple: your deletion rationale was less than we typically expect from nominations, but people here also think that a speedy keep so quickly was probably not ideal. The suggestion is that you withdraw this DRV, and speedily renominate it with more fleshed out policy-based rationale for deletion: it saves the time of more people having to comment on the DRV and allows the article to be assessed at AfD. There is no prejudice about renominating it, and if someone brings it up, you can link to this discussion (or link to it in your nominating statement). TonyBallioni (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, thanks for explaining Tony. Will re-nom tomorrow. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The close here is technically valid but I suspect the nominator intended to bring up a notability-based argument which just wasn't stated explicitly. Given that they have now come up with a more suitable rationale I suggest we reopen it. Hut 8.5 21:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice to renomination. No reason for deletion given, so a close isn't unreasonable. Might've been better to point that out and see if nom adds something, but regardless, there's nothing preventing a speedy renomination without going to DRV. It would be pretty pointless, though, as you're essentially asking for an IAR deletion. Spending 5 seconds on Google shows she easily meets GNG. The fact of her claim to fame, as always, isn't relevant as it's only an indication the sources exist -- and they very obviously do exist. There's the BLP avenue, but she's clearly a public person. We have countless articles on things that one might prefer not to be notable, but that's not the point. Even without a Guinness record, there's far more sourcing than needed to pass GNG (and, of course, what's currently cited isn't relevant to deletion). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, inappropriate speedy keep as the nominator did want the page deleted. I expect the article will be kept, but that doesn't mean we should skip process. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. I wish there were a speedy delete criterion that would apply to this "article". A valid deletion reason was clearly implied, the general one of NOT ENCYCLOPESIC, and the more specific one of NOT TABLOID.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. One of the few sources given in the article is the Daily Mail. Wikipedia no longer considers the Daily Mail as being a reliable source and it is a matter of public record that it has banned it as a reliable source.[3] Besides this source it has a couple tabloid newspaper sources and a Huffington Post source. This is not really the stuff of notability via a number of reliable sources. Wikipedia does have the article List of tallest people. Is Wikipedia planning on having an article entitled List of women with the biggest breasts? Of course, the answer is no to this question. It would not be encyclopedic. And as noted above, The Guinness Book of World Records only published information about Norma once in 2000. We do not know if she is still the holder of her record. A lot can happen in 17 years. The world's population has grown about 33% since 2000.[4] When the last history book closes, she will not be in it because she is not a notable person. A few tabloid articles a Huffington Post and being in the Guinness Book of World Records once is not the stuff of being a notable person. Knox490 (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. It was clear that the nominator was arguing that the principal claim of notability was insufficient. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The nomination wasn't the clearest, but there was clearly an implied notability argument being made. Yet another example of why an SK is usually a bad idea and to be avoided in all but the most obvious of circumstances. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Article renominated @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norma Stitz (3rd nomination) following Tony's advice and the general consensus here to relist. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.