Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Marbeck

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 redirect. Ezeu 06:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Marbeck[edit]

This page/person is non-notable other than a claim that she slept with David Beckham, all the information on this page (which is basically one sentence) is covered in depth on the Beckham page. I higly doubt anyone will come to wikipedia, search for her name and discover that she claims to have bedded Beckham. I vote delete as the information is contained in the Beckham article. Batman2005 20:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect Pete.Hurd 05:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 01:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Tyrenius 02:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. -- ReyBrujo 03:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Metamagician3000 12:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --Ter e nc e Ong 14:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No need for a redirect since everyone will first do a search on Beckham if interested in this issue. -- P199 19:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to redirect. --Tango 19:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per P199. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. User P199 is not necessarily correct. Someone who wanted to know Sarah Marbeck's claim to fame might search "Sarah Marbeck". Redirects are cheap. AndyJones 12:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Do you actually think anyone will ever actually search for Sarah Marbeck? Batman2005 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly. Either she's significant enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia, in which case someone might search for her, or she isn't, in which case she should be removed from the Beckham article. AndyJones 20:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point AndyJones. My favorite part about her article is that it's NEVER been edited since it was created. Batman2005 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would do a search for Sarah Marbeck, WP would still find her and list it as part of the Beckham article. --P199 02:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP is not a part of yellow journalism. --MaNeMeBasat 10:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AndyJones. Runcorn 10:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, wikipedia is not part of yellow journalism, but it documents it (Natalee Holloway). Jdcooper 13:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.