Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Elizabeth Michaels


 * 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. How often does an admin get to close the same AFD as both "delete" and "keep"? Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Andrea Elizabeth Michaels

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Although the article itself looks pretty good, I have serious doubts about her notability (I guess WP:ANYBIO applies for "event producers", right?). Google search yields basically no results, as does a news (and archive) search. The article has been created by, pretty obviously a single purpose account, so I'm suspecting a conflict of interest here. Can anyone verify this person's notability? bender235 (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't even verify the person's existence. A quick Google search finds very few Ghits, and no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Oh, she appears to exist all right. But her book is self-published (by Outskirts Press) and she doesn't appear to have any other claim to notability. The first three hits on Google are all to Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment. I originally closed this as "delete" but I am relisting this discussion per a talk page request. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am the contributor to an article entitled "Andrea Elizabeth Michaels" that was deleted this week. Mr. Ron Ritzman was kind enough to reinstate the article after I contacted him on his talk page. Because I was out of the office, I was unaware that a deletion review was taking place. The reasons listed for the deletion were:

1.	Andrea Elizabeth Michaels was not “noteworthy” enough to be included in Wikipedia. 2.	That a Google search turned up little information on her. 3.	That I am probably a single-purpose contributor and therefore have a conflict of interest in writing this article.

Please let me address each point. In the event production industry, Ms. Michaels is known world-wide. Yes, she self-published her book, but she has been the topic of three other books, multiple magazine and newspaper articles and quoted or interviewed on multiple Web sites, all of which are cited in the 50+ endnotes at the bottom of her article. The event industry is a multi-billion-dollar industry, and Andrea Michaels is one of its pioneers and leading authorities working today. She produces events internationally for Fortune 500 corporations, and her name is a staple in that industry.

In the deletion review, a comment was made that she couldn't be found in a Google search. However, her article was supported with approximately 50 endnotes with references to her in articles, newspapers, books, magazines, Web sites, etc. All of them can be found via Google. A quick Google search on her this morning yielded approximately 30 results in the first 9 pages. There are several other “Andrea Michaels” listed, but she is the “Andrea Michaels” associated with her company “Extraordinary Events”.

Finally, it was also commented that I am probably a “single-purpose” contributor who has a conflict of interest. So not true. As a newbie to Wikipedia, it took me weeks to learn all the rules and regulations and to successfully get this article completed. I worked closely with a number of other experienced contributors (who I thought were editors) to ensure that the entry was encyclopedic and neutral in tone. Unfortunately, I do other work which pulled me away from contributing to Wikipedia, but I fully intend to contribute more, now that I understand how. This article is not a conflict of interest for me, because I have been writing for trade publications that address the event production industry for 25 years, and my focus is on all the personalities in that industry. I was the founding publisher of Special Events magazine and launched the event industry’s first and largest trade show, The Special Event, 25 years ago. I am considered an authority in the industry, and Andrea Michaels is one of the pioneers and outstanding leaders in that industry. Representatives of this multi-billion-dollar industry are notably absent from Wikipedia, and I hope to change that. They include such greats as the late Tommy Walker, the Creative Director of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, and the late Bob Jani, Super Bowl Half-Time producer.

Please reconsider re-instating this article.

I am happy to answer any question that you might have for me about this article or make necessary changes as needed.

Thank you for your kind consideration of my request.Cmckibben (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Cmckibben (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC).


 * Keep I'm not without sympathy to the previous deletion votes, the article still reads like a puff piece. But WP:GNG is clear enough, and "Special Events: A New Generation and the Next Frontier By Joe Goldblatt", p. 354  and this piece from the LA Times appear to be from reliable, secondary sources and to provide signficant coverage of the subject. I would suggest deleting almost anything left unsourced or sourced from primary sources, but that's a content issue, not a deletion vs. not-deletion issue. Even the book source semi-interview needs to be treated with care, but I'd say some of the early introductory comments, including awards won, are reliable enough. --joe deckertalk to me 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't think this should have been closed 'delete', because I think notability is established through significant coverage in reliable sources - as mentioned above. Disclaimer: I assisted the user with creating this via WP:AFC, and I moved it live - as, in my opinion, it met basic inclusion guidelines. The user does have a conflict of interest, and this is - to date - a single-purpose account - however, neither of those are deletion reasons in themselves. I think the concerns expressed could be addressed through the normal editing process.  Chzz  ► 20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am the contributor and am happy to work on correcting content issues. I also plan to not be a single-purpose contributor and have spoken to others regarding how I can continue to contribute on other subjects.Cmckibben (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am the contributor of this article and am also currently working on a new article regarding the late Robert Jani (known as the "father of event production") on my user test page. In addition I am working on "cleanup" projects and on articles that need review and input. Again, I am happy to work on correcting the problems that this committee sees as necessary with the Andrea Elizabeth Michaels article. Thank you. Cmckibben (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Multiple reliable sources now verify her existence and notability. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 17 March 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.