Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kay Toliver


 * 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Kay Toliver

 * — (View AfD)

Article is a resume/CV with a commerical site link and person does not meet the Notability (people) test. Was previously tagged with Template:db-bio and with talk page entry but both were removed. —  AjaxSmack     07:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:HOLE. MER-C 07:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Should be kept. WP:HOLE should be burned. Sadly, this will be deleted, of course, although an encyclopaedia that included Ms Toliver would actually be a tremendous thing. Yes, I know. It would be big. Thinking big is not a sin though. Grace Note 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though the COI issue makes me reluctant, I think I have heard of her, she appears in a lot of black media. Also, the Peabody Award for the Good Morning, Miss Toliver documentary checks out. -- Groggy Dice T | C 07:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, but - in the true spirit of incrementalism - no objection to re-creation when Wikipedia reaches the size suggested by Grace Note (or even a slightly smaller size - just bigger than it is now). Grutness...wha?  08:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not assert sufficient notability or provide references to reliable sources. However, WP:HOLE is a horrible guideline that contradicts everything from WP:N to WP:CSB - just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it's not notable. --70.72.19.133 09:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as there are 20-30 Google News Archive stories, some about her specifically, and some 30 Google Scholar results. Should be sufficient for an article despite what's behind paywalls. --Dhartung | Talk 09:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dhart. -Toptomcat 12:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Including Toliver seems to be really stretching the boundries of notability. But on the other hand, is it really a bad thing to give good teachers some attention?  --Lee Vonce 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The "boundaries" of notability are defined by our guideline WP:BIO as:
 * The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. There are other potential criteria but this is the basic one. Being a teacher may not seem like much, but being a teacher who is nationally recognized with multiple profiles by non-local media over a period of more than a decade is pretty much the canonical exception. --Dhartung | Talk 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Dhartung, notable and verifiable. --Falcorian (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to be encyclopedic GB 03:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep, passes WP:BIO and is encyclopedic, that the person is “only” a teacher is not very relevant for this. Alf photoman 20:43, 9 January 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.