Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maja Einstein (3rd nomination)


 * 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 was keep. John254 00:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Maja Einstein
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy merge or delete Consistent failure for someone to complete a "prompt merger." If no one will spend the time to merge this page, it must be deleted until someone will Ipatrol (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Close and take the issue to the article in question. Improper use of AFD: you can't have an article deleted so that it can be merged later (per wording in the nomination). Don't take an article to AFD for deletion unless you want the information gone. If no one has done the merge yet, then WP:BOLD applies - just go ahead and do it. Otherwise it's too soon to renominate anyway. 23skidoo (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I questioned the wording in this template on the help desk not too long ago, but I didn't get too many replies. From where I'm standing it amounts to Immediatism and a bit of deletionism combined. Also, it goes directly against WP:AFD that specifically tells us not to delete something fixable even if it is not being fixed, WP:NOEFFORT and WP:DEADLINE apply too. The best way to handle this is to contact regulars on the Albert Einstein article personally. Regardless, I think nominating it now under the template's current wording. (How prompt is prompt? There doesn't seem to be a consensus on that, and based on the current view on grace periods for unreferenced articles with regard to deletion WP:IRE (talk) I don't think a consensus is likely to develop. When did this phrase manage to creep(sp?) in? -  Mgm|(talk) 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep an appropriate article in my opinion, and merge needs to be discussed further on the talk page. A recommendation of merge in a close is not compulsion to do so, just a recommendation that it be discussed. Personally, I'd argue against doing it. There is enough discussion on her specifically.  DGG (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per DGG and others above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Keep per DGG et al. She was a marginally notable person.  This can be merged into the Einstein family article if necessary.  There are lots of book sources out there about Maja Einstein.  I suprised this was sent to AfD again. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2008 (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.