Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Adams Miller


 * 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. — CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 03:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Caroline Adams Miller

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable public speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 11:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 11:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 11:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 11:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

*Delete. Miller might be notable, but the existing article is blatant PROMO, so TNT probably applies here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Change to Weak Keep based on further clean-up (details at talk page). Agricola44 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I have removed the puffery, rewrote parts, added book reviews and biographical information. There is a long article about her and several significant reviews including one from the NY Times. Pinging to take another look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Article is better, but still too bloated. For example, both the bio and writing sections talk about her eating disorder and there is lots of trade publication puff about her books, which (though we may have in some articles) is not the norm. I would like to keep this article, but I think it has to be put in further order before we can have an objective assessment. I'll have a go at additional re-arrangement and cutting some promo/puff. Best. Agricola44 (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, . I'd appreciate any additional trimming. It helps to have other eyes looking at things for sure! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG, as seen after MLG's edits. I also added a source for biographical information. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2018 (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.