Deletion of Orly Taitz (2nd nomination)

Comment: I don't see how  applies here at all. Here's what it says: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and ''if'' that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." (italics in original) One event does not mean one issue and she has hardly remained low profile
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Being on TV for a short but highly concentrated ("Warholian"?) period of time should not solely qualify someone to be notable enough for their own Wikipedia entry -- if so, the notability criteria need serious review. Once this whole nonsense dies down, the only information someone should need (or, less importantly, want) to be able to find about this woman in a reasonably filtered encyclopedia should be located in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, anything else is exorbitant. I might also add on an editorial note that, in my opinion, the mere ''appearance'' of her name on a site like Wikipedia will only fuel the persistence of this ridiculous story. Above all, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSOAPBOX)

Comment: To quote , "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but '''essentially remains a low-profile individual''', we should generally avoid having an article on them." To be quite blunt, this woman is not even remotely trying to stay low profile. She's been all over the media, trumpeting her cause, even filing a "real" birth certificate, and gaining even more press because of it. I therefore think that BLP1E does not apply in this case, and the article should be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, as it was until yesterday.  As noted by others, Taitz does not pass muster of ; absent her amateur interest in the Birther movement, Taitz would be absolutely unheard of.  Minutiae about facebook controversies are not relevant to the discussion, and in the end really nothing new has happened since the initial AfD
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories per  & #NEWS with no prejudice to restoring the article if she doesn't fade back into obscurity in a few weeks
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOT)

Comment: this afd clearly vioaltes , a |pointy abuse of process that may have inadvenretently heibvhtened hostilities and led to repeated attempts to delete an article until they are deleted by mistake. very clever, but not going to work here i'm afraid. happy editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN||WP:POINT)

Comment: My arguments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_July_31 the DRV for the nomination apply with equal force here. I won't recapitulate at length what is already available with one click, by a summary is appropriate.  and  cut strongly against articles for people whose notability stems ''only'' from a single event. The arguments for BLP1E's inapplicability are not persuasive, and even if they were, SINGLEEVENT picks up the slack. When both are taken together, they overwhelm. Taitz's notability rests entirely on her involvement in litigating the President's citizenship; "event" can and should be read broadly to deem that one event. Just as playing in one baseball game is one event, no matter how many pitches one throws or balls one hits during that game, filing multiple lawsuits that are functionally identical is also ''one event''. It's the ''game'' that is the event, not the ''plays'', and Taitz's can be covered adequately at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. She is not independently notable and doesn't merit her own article.- Simon Dodd
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SINGLEEVENT||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: if by chance there is any content worth keeping, integrate it into that article. Conspiracy theorists generally aren't notable for that, and people who achieve some measure of celebrity are ''not'' automatically |notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: clearly notable. I disagree that the nomination is |pointy, however
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)