Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Roeth

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Roeth

This page offers no new information about this individual, merely duplicating what is originally stated in the Kinsey biography, and so is not even worth a merger. Unless we can find any more information about Mrs Roeth I would suggest this is one to be nuked. StoneColdCrazy 04:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (even as a microstub). The information about Roeth in the Kinsey article is buried somewhere, but there's no good reason to make people search for it. Think of it this way: someone redirected through Natalie Roeth to Alfred Kinsey is going to say "Huh?" instead of "Oh". Wile E. Heresiarch 04:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC) Revised vote below. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm really not sure anyone is, though, a Google search for Roeth brings up about half a dozen hits, some of which are actually generated from Wikipedia itself, in one form or another. Also, we already have a number of redirects, the reasons behind which are not always immediately obvious and require the searcher to investigate the article. I'd surmise that anyone using Wikipedia is going to be a little investigative, too. --StoneColdCrazy 05:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. I've changed my mind after reading some of the other comments here. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; being an inspirational high school teacher, as crucial as that is for society, is not encyclopedic. Wile E.'s argument above proves too much IMO; I see it as an argument to delete (i.e., it demonstrates that Roeth is not even a big part of Kinsey 's story, never mind getting one of her own), rather than as a reason to keep an article about an obscurity. Dcarrano 22:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dcarrano and suspicios lack of sources. Pavel Vozenilek 22:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established (nor establishable given the comments above). -Splash 00:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Alfred Kinsey, nothing to merge. JamesBurns 02:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dcarrano--nixie 02:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delte Non-notable.--GrandCru 04:19, 19 July 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.