Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Miller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alyssa Miller

Article about a model who has appeared on the covers of a few magazines, but I don't think Wikipedia is a Who's Who of the modeling world. howcheng {chat} 06:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. "Alyssa Miller" gets about 9700 Google hits, "Alyssa Miller" and "model" gets about 400. (Compared to, say, Google has its weak points, but when it comes to gauging models' notability, I figure it does okay. (As a point of comparison, really big names like Tyra Banks or Heidi Klum get over a million and a half hits with the word "model" thrown in for good measure, whereas notable-but-not-mega-big models like Daniella Sarahyba get 40+K hits. Compared to numbers like that, Ms. Miller doesn't seem to be readily distinguishable from any other professional in her field; sure, her name gets mentioned, but apparently only in credits, not so much in articles or news stories. -- Captain Disdain 06:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't seem to match any criteria outlined in WP:BIO. Fabricationary 06:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Comment. Has an entry on IMdB and receives Substantial Google hits. tmopkisn tlka 07:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Uh... I just checked, and I actually get more Google hits than she does. (Though not with the "model" qualifier thrown in. She wins flat out on that front.) In fact, I get way more, because most of the "alyssa miller" hits aren't about her -- there's a 14-year old kid with diabetes, for example. My hits are pretty much all about me, thanks to my crazy Finnish name. In any case, I certainly don't think ~10K hits is all that substantial. As for that IMDB entry, uh, well, you might want to take another look at it: the parts she was playing in 2004 were "Baby Forrester", "Baby in Nursery" and the like. I'll hazard a wild guess that we're not talking about the same person here. =) -- Captain Disdain 07:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Alright, alright, I concede. I'm still not voting for its deletion, but upon further research her notability isn't what I originally thought it was. tmopkisn tlka 07:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Michael 07:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- GWO
  • Delete generic model. Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. It should be noted that it was I that requested that this article be undeleted as it had not gone through an AfD. I presumed that more content than is clearly present was in the article. Per WP:HEY, should a presumption of notability be established by editors adding content to the article, my vote would change to a Keep. She appears surprisingly close to meeting "Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers" from WP:N due to her presence on the cover of Vogue and several other such magazines. Google tests regularly fail to adequately represent models that are big in the industry but have failed to acheive pinup status on the internet due to the type of work they participate in. This is particularly true for high-end fashion models. I will endeavor to do a little lexisnexis digging later today for further clarity. Kershner 14:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I would have to say that just being on the cover of Vogue isn't the same thing as having multiple features in Vogue. (The former being "just" a picture, the latter being an actual discussion of the person in question -- more or less, anyway.) Of course, if you're a model, chances are that you're more likely to be shown than discussed, but then that's the nature of the job -- I guess that's not unlike the difference between starring in a single blockbuster movie and being "Man #2" or equivalent in numerous movies; the latter doesn't really meet our criteria, while the former obviously does. That said, I'm entirely willing to change my stance here if it appears that she's considerably more notable than I thought she was -- I just don't think that fashion models are inherently qualified for inclusion, even though their jobs are inherently more high-profile than those of, say, plumbers or city council members. -- Captain Disdain 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete according with WP:BIO guidelines. Scorpiondollprincess 14:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above. KarenAnn 23:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Massmato 16:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on notability. Ten thousand google hits far exceeds the bar. Wjhonson 23:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's too bad the original author didn't do more work. I've added five more links to her page. She was on the cover of Vogue for heavens' sake :) That's pretty darn notable to me! I've never made it on the cover of any magazine (but I'm still young so there's hope). Wjhonson 00:21, 23 July 2006 (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.