Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pam Bondi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pam Bondi

Seems minor and non-notable. --maru (talk) contribs 01:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, article does not suggest this person is notable. Royboycrashfan 01:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep She's more famous than Flavia Colgan, who has a Wikipedia article, easily survived a vote for deletion, and has essentially the same job: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flavia Colgan

Pam Bondi also has an IMDb entry, which I doubt most other prosecutors do. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1980834/ Then we add that she was offered her own reality TV show. And if you think she needs to be connected to a major case, she was the prosecutor in Dwight Gooden's case; Gooden is a famous baseball player. Beisnj 02:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not Significant person Leidiot 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. dbtfz^talk 03:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep. Article now makes a better claim to notability. dbtfz^talk 03:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. My first instinct was delete; however, her prosecution of Dwight Gooden is likely to gain her enough notoriety in a "newsworthy event" to meet WP:BIO. Furthermore, her name does return 16.000 hits on google (though we can be sure all of those refer to her), and apparently there is some corporate interest in making a show out of her. I don't really see too much danger in preserving the stub and letting others expand it, if they are so obliged. How embarassing for us if we deleted her and she became a world-renowned prosecutor. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep minor notablity.--MONGO 04:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- assunming article is correct, this looks to me like the sort of person someone might well want to look up -- Simon Cursitor 07:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep looks notable enough through TV work Gu 08:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep appears regularly on national TV. ProhibitOnions 09:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep asserts some notability. --Terence Ong 10:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; aside from the logical arguments made above, also meets the deplorable Air Force Amy standard. Monicasdude 14:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and toss Air Force Amy out of the plane as well. Fishhead64 19:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has clearly achieved a lot and is in the public eye. -- JJay 19:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Meh. She was on TV. Low on the notability scale, but still present. Fagstein 03:29, 30 March 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.