Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christel Miller

:{{la|Christel Miller}} ([{{fullurl:Christel Miller|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christel Miller}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Subject requests deletion (otrs:2009042310054812). BJ^Talk 07:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep the subject's appearance in Glamour and Outsmart magazines are clearly evidence of notability. Agricola44's points that the name generates other people with the same name in Google is not evidence that this particular Christel Miller is not notable. Indeed, she is her appearances in well reputed, widely popular magazines as well as her extensive list of films in film festivals are ample evidence of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.232.131 (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Unless a valid reason for deletion surfaces. The mere fact the subject wishes the article to be deleted is not enough, because it counters the whole point of WP becoming comprehensive. The reason needs to meet WP guidelines or policies or at least make legal sense. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, not because she wishes so, but because her work doesn't seem notable. Punkmorten (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I figured out how to edit the page to make it accurate and more presentable so I no longer am requesting it to be deleted (user: christel miller)

• Keep Apparently, the subject does not want it deleted anymore, and it seems to meet notability requirements. Timmeh! 23:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. With all due respect, none of the above "keep" motions (including the one given by the subject of the article herself) make any credible case for retaining the article. The burden is on demonstrating notability, but in this case none is unfortunately to be found. For example: (1) most of her arguably notable works given in the article were actually red-linked (now removed), (2) most of the "news coverage" e.g. [http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2004/winter2/students/glamourgirl.html Glamour Girl] is actually from Rice University media relations, their alumni magazine, film festival rosters, and the like, (3) she is not actually credited in Itty Bitty Titty Committee (according to its WP page), and (4) graduate theses are not really notable publications. (Why the article also lists several dissertations evidently written by other individuals is not clear.) The rest of the article is bio-material having no additional claims of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC).

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There is an obvious conflict of interest in Christel Miller editing her own article. Drawn Some (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The original article was so spammy as to be deleteable. The present one is not. There seem to be enough sources for notability. For those who think it relevant, the subject no longer requests deletion. I would tend to be very skeptical about edits made by the subject to make an article acceptable, but in this case she seems to have done a very good job in objectively removing the excess. DGG (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• keep Outsmart mag (no indication thatis is not a reliable source) + glamour mag (no indiction that it is trivial) = multiple coverage which = noatable. 14:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Again with all due respect, the "keep" motions made after re-listing are completely unconvincing as to the sole relevant criterion of the subject's notability. The assertion by DGG that "there seem to be enough sources for notability" is not supported by any specifics. The rest of his motion relates to the quality of the article, which is unfortunately irrelevant to this debate. The unsigned comment following his is even weaker because of the cited sources. "Outsmart mag" is evidently not notable enough to have its own WP page, so a mention in this publication is probably not very significant, perhaps something like that of a neighborhood newspaper. The [http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2004/winter2/students/glamourgirl.html glamour mag citation] comes from Rice University's public relations magazine, which again has the same issue of significance. Moreover, the second citation seems to be from something like a "top 10" list, rather than a substantive article specifically on this individual. (A link to the actual article would tell us definitively.) The other issues I mentioned above are still unresolved as well (entries in her publication list that are not actually authored by the subject, not actually credited in Itty Bitty Titty Committee, etc.) Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC).
• Comment. I did some additional web searching for independent sources, but could not find any. For example, aside from this WP page, the top google hits for "Christel Miller" point to a [http://nls.point2.com/members/US/Maryland/Frederick/Christel-Miller/ABA04FD0-1BF4-4BA6-9987-0AC9E763CA10.html real estate agent in Maryland], a [http://home.earthlink.net/~lenker/Tree/lenker/12322.html toddler], and various [http://www.facebook.com/people/Christel-Miller/1565581614 facebook] pages. There is a brief [http://www.freebase.com/view/en/christel_miller freebase page], but that document says that it was auto-generated directly from the WP page, so it's not independent. I'm afraid we're left with the same conclusion that there's nothing of significance to be found here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC).
• Comment. I've looked at some of the more specific movie-related sources too, but have found nothing to support keeping this article. For example, neither IMdB nor Rotten Tomatoes seem to have entries on the subject. There just doesn't seem to be any real evidence of notability, at least none that is able to reasonably be found. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC).

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Earwig ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 01:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Relisted per no consensus: I've relisted this debate because there appears to be no clear consensus about whether this article should be kept or deleted. If it wasn't for Agricola44's comments, I would mark this a keep, but because the evidence provided by that editor is substantial, I think that we can't be sure. The majority opinion is to keep it, but there is strong evidence from the other side, so the debate has been relisted. The Earwig ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 01:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I've reverted an inappropriate non-admin closure. "No consensus" is an admin decision, because it indicates the debate was contentious, which means non-admin closure is inherently inappropriate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I had a look at the ticket, and the subject has replied that there is no longer a need to delete the entry. Just FYI. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2009 (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.