Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Kraus Boelte

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 Eluchil404 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Kraus Boelte

~~Not notable enough to figure in main WP Kindergarten article - if she is notable then so am I :-) BlueValour 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)~~ BlueValour 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creator has had plenty of time to cite importance of said individual and has yet failed to provide evidence of notability. -- DrunkenSmurf 18:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Keep Article is now in great shape, I change my vote to keep, thank you HJMG, great job. DrunkenSmurf 16:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No non-Wikipedia google hits for New York Seminary for Kindergartners. At best, Merge her into Friedrich Wilhelm August Fröbel. Her book, The Kindergarten Guide, Volumes 1 and 2, would be a decent reference there. Ted 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why merge there, that doesn't look like her husband? He was German, she supposedly started an organization that was American. GRBerry 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This stub would not appear to do much or any justice to Boelte. I say that after perusing EB's long article on this disciple of Frobel, early educator, author and important figure in the kindergarten movement [1]. The nom may or may not be notable. But that, in my view, is completely irrelevant when judging Boelte. Instead, I would appreciate a serious nomination and valid explanation of why we should be less inclusive than Encyclopedia Britannica, or why her book was recently republished after 130 years [2]. --JJay 02:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is the sparcity of information in the article. While editors who are considering AfDs do carry out their own research the onus must be on the creator to justify that the article has sufficient importance to be kept. In this instance the 'Importance' tag has been on the article for 6 months but neither the creator nor anyone else has seen fit to address the issue. TerriersFan 02:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per JJay. Just because you don't know the importance of something doesn't mean it's not important. [ælfəks] 03:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't be serious with that comment [ælfəks]. Every article must try to establish notability and include links to sources so that readers can easily see why the person is important and not have to figure it out for themselves. I have no idea who this person is and my searches on Google did not come up with enough information for me to see how this person is notable. In addition, the article is one sentence and provides me with zero information on the person. But I guess since you know the person is important I should just vote to keep the article.

If you have evidence of notability for the person, or have more information on her than just one sentance, add it to the article and help it grow so we can include this person in Wikipedia. I will be more than happy to change my vote if the article is expanded to include such information. DrunkenSmurf 14:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a valid historical niche. Dlyons493 Talk 06:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above - ~~but the article does need to be expanded.~~ See also Google book search.--HJMG 08:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Have added some info to the article. --HJMG 16:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent contribution but can you source it, please? BlueValour 16:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it comes from page 229 of the first book listed under "References" which you can find on Google Books. Other bits from the second book, from library catalogues and possibly some scraps picked up by scanning through other search results.--HJMG 17:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --Coredesat 08:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established. ~ trialsanderrors 17:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is notable: has Britannica article, published author back in the day when that actually meant something. —Centrx→talk 20:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The best outcome of an AFD discussion is an improved article. This is now improved enough that I can say keep, which I couldn't above. GRBerry 01:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - I agree with GRBerry and I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. BlueValour 15:03, 23 June 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.