Deletion of Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion

Comment: There are http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22michelle+obama%22+fashion&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&scoring=a thousands of sources covering this topic from an international perspective.  Per , "''being objectionable is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSOR)

Comment: Now that the article is not about the arms anymore but about her influence in these areas as a whole. As such, exporting material from Michelle Obama to this new article is something that is quite allowed in the policies and even preferred by  to avoid making the main article too long. The title of the article might need a change to conform MOS but the goal to fork out style and fashion related material from the parent article is perfectly fine within policy and the !votes for deletion based on the previous article fail to take into account that the page does not reflect the previously deleted version anymore. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SIZE)

Comment: Sweet jesus on a pogo stick, we're here ''again''? As noted by others, the "arms" article was already deleted via AfD. Despite the title and ''slightly'' expanded topic area to style, the bulk of the article still centers around the the lady's pecs biceps. Where this falls short in the |notability guidelines is the "...presumed to satisfy" aspect of it. It appears from past discussion on the main Michelle Obama page as well as in the prior AfD that the subject matter is simply not appropriate for a standalone article. Its just...fluff, like the kind of off-beat story that what's-her-name on CNN does about potato chip pantsuits and other silly season junk. Not everything mentioned by the media is instantly article-worthy, and via the 5th bullet point of the "General notability guideline", editors have the support they need to decide, by consensus, that some reliably-sourced events are just too dumb and too irrelevant to warrant an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Unencyclopedic" is NOT a reason to delete an article. The subject of the article is notable per  and the information is verified by reliable sources. Not that it is relevant, but the deletion of the article on Michele Obama's arms was ill-considered and against Wikipedia policy and was nothing less than an attack on common sense. I am ashamed that Wikipedia editors want to suppress knowledge about such topics
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: Absolutely un-needed arm fetishism. If you want a policy reason (surprisingly that doesn't appear in the deletion policies), then we'll have a crack at 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: per . I agree with
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: per  c4 and . The nominating admin concluded that this article is substantially a recreation of an article that we have already decided to delete. Policy dictates that this article is presumptively toast, then, unless someone is challenging that conclusion. No one has done so, and unless they intend to, I think we can speedy this and bypass the extended debate. To the extent that we can't, if this article isn't covered by , I second
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:SPEEDY||WP:RECREATE||WP:RECREATE)