Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Stoker Smith (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. The two sides of the debate here have very good points, and there is no clear consensus as to what to do with the article. Relisting would result in the same outcome. (X! · talk) · @235 · 04:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Stoker Smith[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this reporter. Joe Chill (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP , We're talking about Mary Stoker Smith the evening anchor for KYW-TV in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Well she may not be Barbra Walters or Bryant Gumbel, but to many she's Mary Stoker Smith, a familiar face on the tube. I think her status is notable.* These people think so - http://www.lauranachman.net/?p=2523 (Milestokilo (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)) (Milestokilo (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - I can't find any significant coverage of this reporter either. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the keep !vote above, I'm going with open possibilities of WP:LOCAL, but with no coverage found, it's not gonna survive. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-known television broadcaster in a major U.S. market who has been the subject of significant media coverage: [1]. Warrah (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is local news. Joe Chill (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? WP:LOCAL is not policy, it is just an essay. The subject passes WP:GNG. Warrah (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, see no evidence of WP:GNG in this article. Change my mind, please? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Warrah sums it up quite well and has said something that I neglected to say. I think that how much is enough and how much would make this person notable. Significant media coverage as Warrah said is enough, So I say that the page-article must be kept. (Milestokilo (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete fails our general notability guideline. JBsupreme (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A news anchor on a CBS affiliate in a major market in combination with the coverage provided above demonstrates inclusion worthiness. --Oakshade (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2010 (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.