Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Miranda


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Amy Miranda

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm getting tired of maintaining this article. It's an autobiography of an advertiser with, or so the article claims, some professional recognition although the links provided are all broken. It's recently been targeted by slanderous vandalism. So basically we're maintaining an outdated resume for an individual who probably falls short of the WP:BIO requirements and we have to maintain it actively because of WP:BLP concerns. Waste of time imo. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment difficulty in maintaining an article is no reason for deletion. It can be a reason for protection. DGG (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, no reason for deletion given. Suggest page protection.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 22:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I sort of take issue with the statement "no reason for deletion given". I am not saying that it should be deleted because it's difficult to maintain, I'm saying that the effort spent maintaining it is absurd given the subject. As for reasons for deletion, let me restate them in short: fails WP:BIO, no substantive third-party coverage, article written by subject, difficulty in verifying that the subject did get the professional recognition (as opposed to, say, recognition of the agency she works for). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am seeing nothing that passes WP:BIO. I read her webiste and accompany resume and she's just a person who has had a string of jobs, one a few local industry awards, and is looking for another job. ==Crunch (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:BIO is somewhat ambiguous about the weight of awards for purposes of establishing notability. On the one hand, it suggests a presumption of notability if a person "meet[s] any of the following standards," emphasis added, and includes the person having "received a notable award or honor" on the list. Ms. Miranda has received several: notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFF, surely the appropriate yardstick for an award's notability for purposes of WP:BIO is whether it meets WP:N itself, and the Lions Awards do. On the other hand, WP:BIO cautions that "meeting one or more [of the additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The most sensible reading of these two provisions, I think, is that while an award will not ordinarily establish notability by itself, it may push a case that's otherwise in the rough onto the fairway. The basic criterion is coverage in published secondary sources, and if "the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability"; minor coverage plus notable awards may suffice in lieu of minor coverage in lots of sources (or major coverage in a few sources), and the more notable the awards, the more trivial the additional coverage that can be made up for by the award(s). For example, winning a hugely notable award such as an oscar, even given otherwise trivial coverage, should ordinarily establish notability. Unfortunately, applying that approach here, Ms. Miranda. comes up short. I can't find even trivial coverage of her in "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Although my search wasn't comprehensive, the burden lies on the editor who adds material, not on s/he who would remove it. If coverage - even relatively insubstantial coverage, given the weight provided by the awards - in reliable sources can't be adduced, I support the nom. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:04, 10 February 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.