Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Reinertsen


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:59Z 

Sarah Reinertsen

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep multiple independent nontrivial sources &mdash;siro&chi;o 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This deletion crusade is getting tedious. And per Siroxo. --Limegreen 01:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick perusal of Siroxo's Google News link indicates that Sarah has multiple independent nontrivial sources related to her athletic career, making me question the amount of effort and research that went into the nominator's claim of "reality tv cruft". Maxamegalon2000 01:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sixoro. ConDem Talk 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete --ImpartialCelt 02:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * reasons? -- TomXP411[Talk]
 * Merge in to contestants for that season. No notability on her own, but the prosthetic limb thing should merit mention in the Amazing Race article. -- TomXP411[Talk] 03:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Siroxo and because as always "cruft" is not a valid deletion criterion. Otto4711 05:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There might be sources for the detail of the article, but as it stands there's not much to justify notability. Also, anyone who actually looked this article up would already know everything in it, so its not exactly a useful addition to Wikipedia as it stands. There's no reason to delete it, but let's try adding to it so it actually benefits the project. Jeendan 06:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * *Merge as per TomXP411 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. We're getting a lot of Reality TV contestant pages lately. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into the main article. Adambro 09:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a good article, meets the guidelines and the google UK search results showed loads of results, about 50,000, therefore because of this and the WP:BIO, it is notable and should be kept. Telly   addict Editor review! 11:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Google shows there's plenty of sources available. Just because someone was a contestant on a reality show doesn't mean they can't be notable on their own. Nominator provided no sources to back up their reasoning. Per WP:BIO and perhaps even sports specific guidelines this should have its own article. - Mgm|(talk) 12:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into the main article and delete the main article. And who the heck wrote, "she missed the bike leg cutoff time" &mdash; bad joke. Noroton 14:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. --evrik (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to be notable enough for WP:BIO with multiple verifiable sources of info. I added some material to article.  Warfieldian 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the announced non-trivial sources are added into the article instead of being announced Alf photoman 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - So let me get this straight: Being the first amputee to complete the Ironman doesn't make you noteworthy??? But being an obscure Pokémon character or a minor character from a video game is? (See, we all have our biases.) — xanderer  22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Many things make you notable (though I tend to agree with you on the Pokemon), but we need sources and references, especially when we are talking about living persons Alf photoman 23:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. If no merge, Delete. Not notable. TV guide and MySpace are not encyclopaedic. - WeniWidiWiki 01:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup per Siroxo, Maxamegalon2000, and others. Meets notability criteria, and plenty of sources available.  Needs cleanup is not a reason for deletion. schi talk  02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article as it stood was pathetic, but has improved beyond all recognition since I put a merge tag on the article, and also since the AfD debate began. There is sufficient assertion/achievement for me to believe it worth preserving. The article still needs to be sourced, though, and there appear to be plenty of weblinks to choose from amongst all the GHits. Ohconfucius 03:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep *Merge into the main article please . MarlaB 09:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Have to change my vote. If these had been listed one at a time I probabaly would have bit. See my comments at Leonid the Magnificent.MarlaB 10:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is being nominated for deletion under false pretenses, multiple non-trivial sources exist which demonstrate notability.  (jarbarf) 00:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Bad nomination. Delete all AfD cruft instead. - Denny 05:58, 24 February 2007 (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.