Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daphne barak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. I will move to the proper capitalization at Daphne Barak · Katefan0(scribble) 05:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daphne barak

Delete: I don't believe that a negligible interviewer mertis an article. Who is she? Does she even exist? Dr.Genius 10:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Seems like a vanity page Dr.Genius 10:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC) (correction Dr.Genius 10:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC))

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep definitely a borderline case, but I think she just barely squeaks by. Absolutely no question at all that she does exist. Her site has many photos, and her's an MSNBC story which mentions her: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4506978/ Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, she's interviewed Robert Mugabe and the queen of Jordan, so she's more notable than Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 13:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Her web site is a vanity site, but the article is not. She's had more than enough major interviews to qualify.. --rob 14:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is not a borderline case. This article serves as a shortcut to this person's webpage. Definitely a vanity page. We are editing an encyclopedia here, not "Cosmopolitan". ChristianPlato 15:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The issue is not whether her website is a vanity page, but whether this individual is notable enough to qualify for an article in the encyclopedia. I think she is. -- BD2412 talk 19:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Kappa is exactly right, not to mention the other 2-bit hacks that published an article once in Macworld and yet have an entry. Dottore So 20:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. This is an encyclopedia, it is very frustrating to try to find out something about someone and *not* find an entry, Queen of Jordon talked to her IMHO she's noteable enough. 24.73.237.226 01:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC) * eep that was me not logged in, sorry! KillerChihuahua 01:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kappa, but obviously move to Daphne Barak. Guettarda 02:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per ChristianPlato. The Macworld guys should not be here either. One mistake does not justify another. (oops 132.74.99.84 10:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete. This is a vanity page. The only thing on it is a link to a personal webpage. BTW: Ehud Barak is 63. This woman looks 50+. How could she be his daughter??? EhudBarak 10:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per ChristianPlato. This is an encyclopedia, not a Google database. Not everything that can be found on Google should have an entry in a serious encyclopedia. Fot those who are afraid that they can't find this person on Wikipedia: You can't find millions of more prominent people in here. Professors, journalists, managers, military men, judges, etc. If you get this interviewer in you should get in the entire NY phone book as well. In addition, this does seem like a vanity page. Baby Face 11:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dr. Genius is partly right. She does exist, but does not merit an entry. Mookey 23:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Commment: Can I point out to anyone tempted to sign up just to vote on this article, that your vote is not likely to be counted by the admin who makes the decision. Kappa 23:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Kappa - are you trying to tilt the vote by threatening? You have already shown your interest above. Everyone is entitled to vote here. Mookey 23:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I just don't want people wasting their time. Kappa 23:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Makes me wonder who decides whose vote is more valuable. I guess if I am black or muslim or jewish, I won't be counted. Mookey 23:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC) And another thing, I have heard that commercial companies are paying "innocent" wikipedians to promote their products. See, e.g., Xbox. Maybe some wikipedians are also in the PR business? Mookey 23:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.