Deletion of Nadya Suleman (2nd nomination)

Comment: I heard removed per !  In any case, this article is not worthy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: While a |single event brought her to national prominence, she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for matters beyond that event&mdash;matters that (in response to comments such as Physchim62's) are off-topic in an article on the Suleman octuplets
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEVENT)

Comment: The nomitator in his inital post is advocating a redirect. This alone should qualify it for |speedy keep under reason 1, ''the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion.'' Although I'm not going to push this because I think it should come to a natural keep conclusion. But according to policy it should be speedily kept. —&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:KEEP)

Comment: The person in question is notable for |only one event and we should not extensively document this person who outside this event would fail 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP)

Comment: There was an obvious  situation at the first AfD, the nominator '''withdrew''' the nomination, and yes, I closed it because the clearly stated conditions at  had been met. The nominator was the only one advocating deletion, and he withdrew, it was over. Re-nominating after so short a time is almost always a bad idea. If there have been bad edits to the article since then, add appropriate tags, or dare I suggest, ''fix the problems''. Maybe some discussion on the talk page, where this issues are being discussed right now,  before a speedy re-nomination. Calling for oversight on this is over-the-top ridiculous
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:SPEEDYKEEP)

Comment: Passes . She thrust herself into te media spotlight; there are articles about multiple aspects of her life cited in the wiki page, so  does not apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: obviously meets  - a hell of a lot more notable than various game show contestants, professors and two-bit institutions and self-published authors that WP gladly confers the almighty notability upon. This might have been a redirect under , were she basically otherwise anonymous and kept herself to herself. But she has hired PR agents, actively sought and given interviews to the press - so whatever embarassment or privacy considerations that generated  don't apply here: she's neither embarassed nor has she any concern apparently to maintain any privacy. If you want to live in the public eye and meet  and , go for it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:N||WP:BIO)

Comment: per solid nomination and Tocino; explained below. '''Redirect''' per the very solid nomination. While the event is arguably notable, the fact that a woman named Nadya Suleman happens to be involved in that event is completely trivial. Raeky, arguing for "strong keep," states the following: "I think to state that she's notable for just the octuplets isn't reflected in the shear number of news articles written about her. Laws are being enacted to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. The doctor that did this is under investigation. Legal battles will most likely arise about custody (hospital is already refusing to release to her)." The problem with this reasoning is that the legal and ethical discussions could have been prompted by this type of ''event'', regardless of who was involved in the event. There does not appear to be anything physically or psychologically interesting about Suleman that would render her uniquely predisposed to have octuplets, and it does not appear that she has contributed in important ways to the surrounding debate. Her involvement in the entire spectacle seems to be entirely coincidental. As an analogy, let's suppose that a tiger escapes from the zoo and eats a guy. And let's suppose that, later on, we discover that the tiger's name is Bill and that his meal's name is Bob. And finally, let's suppose that the tragic encounter between Bill and Bob leads to heated debate about animal confinement and zoo safety. Does this mean we should create Bill (tiger) and Bob (tiger's lunch)? Of course not! Who they are/were is immaterial; all that matters is that chance happened to bring them together in a way that commentators seized upon. And yet it might even be ''more'' appropriate to talk about poor Bob than about Nadya Suleman, because the latter is alive and therefore falls under the protection of . BLP states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist." A separate article about Suleman is sensationalist. Gutter journalism is sensationalist. An encyclopedia, in contrast, does not focus on a person just because other sources have focused on the person; it focuses on a person when other sources have demonstrated that a person is ''worth focusing on'' at the potential expense of that person's privacy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)