Deletion of Kristi Yamaoka (fourth nomination)

Comment: It really does not matter how many people vote keep on this article. It clearly violates  and needs to be removed for that reason
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: This is your third attempt at deleting this article. Your previous two attempts ended in a clear consensus of '''Keep'''. As stated at , '''This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome.''' This Wikipedia official policy is to attempt editors from taking a second stab (or third or fourth as you already have) at deleting an article after a consensus has been reached to keep it as is. I have yet to see a clearer and more well-defined effort by one individual to undermine established consensus. It's time to move on to other articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: No compliment was intended or justified. The problem is that "We have a clear policy here, and it's not being adhered to." The problem is that the policy in question is   and you refuse to abide by it.  requires you to obey precedent, and lays out a procedure for those too stubborn to accept it: '''"An editor who thinks that a consensual decision is outdated may ask about it on the relevant talk page, at the |Village Pump, or through a |Request for Comment to see whether other editors agree. No one editor can unilaterally declare that consensus has changed."''' Yet you have refused to follow this part of the policy, as well. You have ignored consensus not once, but a second time. You have shown that you refuse to respect precedent as part of your |ignore all rules crusade, firmly sticking your thumb in the eye of two clear agreements that this article stays as is. If this is a lousy article improve it. If you can't come up with a clear explanation for why  should be ignored, it's time to walk away from this article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONSENSUS||WP:CONSENSUS||WP:VP||WP:RFC||WP:IAR||WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: media coverage connotes notability, which is not temporary. As for , nothing ''prevents'' an article for a one-event phenom: care to delete Monica Lewinsky, Mehmet Ali Ağca, Sirhan Sirhan, and many others who really are only famous for 1 incident
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: While several months have passed by since the previous attempt to delete this article, which ended in a fairly resounding vote to '''keep''' the article. It seems hard to see that another nomination from the same person is not a violation of . As notability does not fade away, a statement about "lack of any new or different material" is ludicrous on its face. Given the multiple reliable and verifiable sources, this article should be retained
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: Violates  - a person notable only for a single incident does not merit an article. She's had her 15 minutes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (second nomination)|AfD2 ended with 21 editors specifying keep, 6 deletes and 1 merge; the result was '''keep'''. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (third nomination)|AfD3 ended with 12 keeps and 4 deletes; the result was '''keep'''.  requires you to obey precedent, stating that '''...editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome.''' You've tried twice and failed twice, by overwhelming majority votes, your preferred definition. All you are doing now is spitting in the face of consensus and overwhelming precedent. By your logic, if some future AfD should finally end with your "preferred outcome", why should anyone respect the delete and not simply recreate this article, exactly as is? I'm not sure why you have developed this |ignore all rules obsession with deleting this article, but your  is disruptive of one of the most fundamental of Wikipedia's official policies. If consensus means nothing, why bother trying to reach it or change it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONSENSUS||WP:IAR||WP:POINT)