Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie S. Tolan


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie S. Tolan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a notable person. The page doesn't contain anything about her life. Mike  2  8  9 (click on 9)! 20:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral It would seem to me that winning a Newberry Honor is a pretty significant achievement--analogus to being nominated for an Academy Award in the motion picture industry. However, this article needs work. Blueboy96 22:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - As an author of children's literature, a Newbury Honour is a definite indication of notability. Surviving the Applewhites has had many reviews in a multidude of soruces (e.g., ), and the fact that she won the honour has also been reported.  Her other books have also receicved reviews (e.g., ), and her work has also been adapted for television. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. The subject didn't win a Newbury Honor, a book of hers (Surviving the Applewhites) did. The book that own is unquestionably notable, but that notability is not automatically inheritable. Also, remember Newbury Honor =/= Newbury Medal. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Saying the book won the honour, and not the author is really splitting hairs; that is especially so given WP:AUTHOR point 3 which indicates that a person can be notable for creating a significant or well-known work, or body of work. Reviews of her books, and a Newbury Honour fill that criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – I'm quite convinced the Newberry is notable, but I'm not convinced each and every recipient merits a stand-alone article in an encyclopedia. Single-time nominees for anything don't even pass WP:PORNSTAR on the basis of the nomination. The subject is not notable per unambiguous guidelines (e.g. WP:BIO). And for full disclosure, I'm from the same place as the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 05:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The argument for keeping this article isn't based solely on the Newbury Honour. It's a Newbury Honour in conjunction with coverage about her books that merits a keep based on WP:AUTHOR. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Whpq, and also because additional sources clearly exist (albeit behind pay walls), e.g. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Whpq and Arxiloxas. Simple GBooks search demonstrates far more than enough coverage. Moreover, a book that receives a Newbery honor is certain to have been reviewed/covered in many reliable sources, and WP:NOTINHERITED points out that notability is generally shared by creators and their creative work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator complains the article doesn't contain anything about the author's life. That is not a reason to delete something.  You don't need to know their personal business anyway.  The author has published notable books, and won a notable award for at least one of them, so its therefore notable.  You just authors by their works.  Google news archive search gives ample results, but everything I click on is hidden behind a paywall.   D r e a m Focus  09:36, 30 September 2011 (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.