Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KathleenMalda

3-4 hits, depending on which search engine. There have been numerous public proposals, but as far as I know, none of the other, otherwise not notable, recipients have their own article. Her husband's article doesn't even point to this page, and the one page that does link to it doesn't mention the proposal. Niteowlneils 00:47, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete: On second thoughts. It's not much of an article title, why not keep with slashdot? - Anyway search for Kathleen Fent Slashdot proposal for relevant links (I've added maiden name to article). --bodnotbod 00:53, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
"Briefly well-known"? Sounds like delete (possibly merging into another article). Andris 01:02, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
Her husband is fairly well known, and his article basically already contains all the information in this article. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 01:55, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Alcarillo 03:58, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no content that isn't on the Rob Malda page, nor is there likely to be any. --Stormie 05:14, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:44, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rob Malda. See others comments above. Dpbsmith 02:40, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and famous. anthony (see warning) 16:00, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Redir to Rob Malda. He's famous. She's not. Andrewa 01:19, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- By what definition of famous do you say that? anthony (see warning) 10:07, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I'll attempt a reply. I'm not using any particular definition, but the question suggests that you are. It might be helpful if you were to tell us what yours is. Andrewa 14:27, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Well or widely known" is the dictionary.com definition. Seems good enough for me. Maybe you don't know how to put your particular definition into words, but surely you have one, or at least you are claiming to by saying that one person is famous and one isn't. I was just wondering what criterion you were using to distinguish between the two, because they both seem equally famous to me. anthony (see warning) 15:52, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I'll attempt a reply. It's not a matter of knowing how, it's more a matter of not seeing the need in terms of meaning and reference. I accept your definition. So, you seem to be saying that as many people know of Kathleen Malda as know of Rob Malda. I don't think that is supported by the current articles or the discussion here, but if you can back it up I'll change my vote. Does that help? Andrewa 20:45, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I never said anything about the number of people who know of either. And I'm not trying to change your vote. I was just wondering why you consider one famous and the other not. But I guess you're not going to answer that. anthony (see warning)
        Comment: I'll attempt a reply. I'm fascinated. How did your definition help the discussion? What purpose do you have in discussing this, if you're not interested in changing my vote? You're right in that I see no point in providing more reasons than I already have, they seem clear enough to me. Andrewa 06:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        My definition didn't help the discussion. You asked for it, so I provided it. My main purpose in knowing why you consider one famous and the other not is curiousity. I mean, what's the purpose of providing a reason if you're not going to explain what it means? You could just as well have said "Rob Malda is sdflkjds and Kathleen Malda is not." In addition, maybe I'll learn something. Hell, maybe you'll change my vote. anthony (see warning)
Agreed. Redirect and delete. She's simply not notable enough to warrant an article of her own. - Lucky 6.9 03:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's a frequent target of Slashdot trolls, who like to catalogue fanciful sexual escapades and generally put her down. Since the community has decided to cover Slashdot trolling in depth, I think we should keep this article to contribute to this goal. Crculver 14:31, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. I spend a bit of time on Slashdot myself, and while Rob Malda's online proposal to Kathleen [1] is an interesting pop culture phenomenon, Kathleen herself has posted only twice -- both times in reply to the proposal itself [2]. --Robertb-dc 01:49, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely only having posted twice to slashdot is no reason to not have a wikipedia article. anthony (see warning)
  - Comment: I'll attempt a reply. No, it's not. The point I think is that two slashdot posts aren't enough to justify one. I think you may be affirming the consequent here. Andrewa 20:45, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    - So mentioning the number of posts she's made is just a strawman argument? I'm certainly not affirming the consequent, as I'm not trying to prove anything. anthony (see warning)
      - Comment: (Still noting my warning too of course.) IMO it's not really a straw man in the sense described by the article on the topic, but it's similar, yes. Again I'm fascinated, what are you trying to do? Andrewa 06:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        I was pointing out the fact that Robert gave no reason for deletion. anthony (see warning)
Keep. Just because someone is only midly famous is not enough to justify deletion, IMHO. Burgundavia 07:31, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect. Can be adequately covered in Rob Malda. No more noteworthy than any other well-known person's associates and relatives - yet. --Zigger 18:39, 2004 May 13 (UTC)
Redirect. Agree with above. --ZeLonewolf 19:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too insignificant for even a redirect. The article on Rob Malda should cover his marital relations, children and so forth. :) -- Stevietheman 01:39, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]