Deletion of Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling

Comment: This is {{User|Libertycookies}} second attempt to circumvent consensus. Last time resulted in a blatant circumvention of |AfD as the user merged the content into the main J. K. Rowling article, hence my vote for protection. Material is almost entirely |OR, violates  and is a blatant attempt at quote-mining and POV pushing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD||WP:OR||WP:BLP)

Comment: for , plus for , Rowling's political opinions not in themselves being notable for an article. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:N)

Comment: reposting of previously deleted content, violations of , , and . If this article is deleted, as it should be, Libertycookies needs to be sternly warned to adhere to our content policies and to stop POV-forking
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:BLP)

Comment: Clear attempt at circumventing previous article deletion and consensus to remove similar content on J.K. Rowling.  Also violates  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: with some editorial '''Comments''': If any encyclopedic material remains in the POV-Fork that does not appear in the Main J.K. Rowling article, then merge that information back in.  The original consensus back at the J.K. Rowling talk page called for LibertyCookies to produce a simple paragraph or two of some basic sourced material regarding Rowling's notable and documented political leanings.  That permissive mandated that any such material must NOT contain any sort of |POV, |Original Research, |point-making or, in particular, |Argument Synthesis.  But the material inevitably consisted of mostly synthesis and point-making, eg: Rowling is or was in some way associated with a Person or other Entity, or read their work, or contributed to it, or wrote about it, (etc.), and such Person or Entity is a known or suspected to be associated with some political affiliation "X" or "Y" , therefore (implicitely) Rowling is also "X" and "Y".  It may well be that Rowling is a Socialist/Communist/Marxist/Fascist/Leftist/Laborist/Environmentalist/Satanist/Whatever, and if so and it can be sourced, then state that and be done with it.  One paragraph and ''done''.  There is absolutely no cause for producing a laundry list of indirect tie-ins between Rowling and her alleged political leanings or sympathies, via her associations.  Find a reliable source that quotes Rowling as saying "Yes I am a Socialist and contribute to the Green Party" or whatever, ''and then leave it''.  Done.  Keep it simple and it will be accepted as encyclopedic.  Dragging it out with 12 paragraphs of possible links between Rowling and "X" and "Y" and therefore Rowling = "XY" is unacceptable.  And attempting to use her tongue-in-cheek "in-(HP)-universe" ''WOMBAT'' quiz, which she posted for amusement on her web site, as "evidence" of her political leanings, is really just sad. It is the sort of thing that is leading the nearly-|snow drive to stamp this thing out once and for all.  That said, I believe there is room for a paragraph or two in Rowling's article about her documented politics and beliefs.  There is no need for an article which constituted a |POV Fork
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NOR||WP:POINT||WP:SYNTH||WP:SNOW||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: and merge per Jossi. Utterly obvious 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: and '''redirect''' then '''protect''' |POV fork, |OR, major  issues. It's a personal blog post on Wikimedia servers
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:OR||WP:OWN)

Comment: as |POV fork and merge any useful content to J. K. Rowling as nom
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)