Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie 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   no consensus to delete. The concerns based on WP:BLP1E seem very valid, but there's no consensus in this discussion to delete based solely on that rationale - there do indeed seem to be a large number of sources to demonstrate some notability. I would suggest that a merge to Plus-size model may be prudent based on the potential lack of continuing notability beyond the one photo - but again there's no consensus in this discussion to do so, and a merge can be discussed on the talk page. ~ mazca  talk 19:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Lizzie Miller

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:ENT and WP:BLP1E. Not sure about this one. The coverage is certainly there, but only in reference to the publicity a single photo of Miller has received. As a model, she doesn't appear to have any real claim to notability, and it's kind of iffy to me to have an article on someone solely because she has a roll of fat on her stomach and a few news sources decided to talk about it.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 14:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: If not its own article, maybe merge into Plus-size model or something like that.  Its a notable event. --Milowent (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The plus-size model article already covers this topic.   Mbinebri   talk &larr; 18:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I hear you (Mbinebri). But when you say As a model, she doesn't appear to have any real claim to notability, I start to wonder what real claim any model has to notability. Lee Miller was a model for Man Ray in photographs that are reprinted in books, exhibited, and discussed, so I think she'd qualify (cf "Kiki de Montparnasse"); but she soon outgrew that, and the article on her spends little time talking about her modeling and more about her other, very real achievement as a photographer. The other models? Well, they wore this frock or that frock, and appeared on this or that issue of this or that magazine, and maybe got lots of money and a footballer husband. See Category:American female models: they've been bred like rabbits, and those are just the US non-"adult" ones. I thought I'd sample their notability. None of the names meant anything to me, so I picked "Cheyenne Brando" as it seemed the silliest. No discernable mention of anything I'd call notability, other than having been in the news. Another daft name: "Velvet D’Amour": she appeared in fashion shows twice, and was (is?) very fat (or whatever's the right euphemism for this). Another wacky name: "Yaya DaCosta". She's modeled for a great number of companies, or so we are told (there's not a shred of sourcing), but nothing's said about her modeling. And she's had bit roles in movies. My gut feeling is that if there were any requirement for notability beyond being written up in gossip rags, thousands of these articles would be out. However, if buzz does count, then just for French: here (Lizzie) Miller is in Libération, and here she is at Le Matin, complete with a paean by someone described as a philosopher the philosopher Michela Marzano and (more excitingly) a video that invites the hetero male demographic to invoke WP:HOTTIE. -- Hoary (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC) ... amending with name of and link to philosopher -- Hoary (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Tyra Banks has obvious claim to notability mostly for modeling.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Hoary: You're preaching to the choir, man. If it was up to me, half the model articles on Wikipedia would be deleted by the end of the day for lack of sourcing and dubious notability.  But it's not so easy to prove the subject's non-notability because there's generally an incorrectly assumed correlation between having appeared on a certain magazine cover or in a certain fashion show and the existence of significant coverage—i.e., if so-and-so was on the cover of Vogue, she must be important enough to have the coverage somewhere, even if it's not demonstrated in the article.  Unfortunately though, the editors at Project WikiFashion that I would bring up this issue to are the exact ones creating these unsourced, dubious articles by the dozen.  The model category is also over-used for non-models.  That all said, and as TParis00ap pointed out, some models are clearly notable, like Banks is.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 18:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd never heard of Banks, and after reading her article I'm still sure I'd never heard of her. It's an odd article in several ways, but I suppose she merits an article as a minor sleb. Let's just looking at the first and larger part of the chunk about her modeling work: Within Banks' first week in Paris, designers [who?] were so entranced by her presence on the runway that she was booked for an unprecedented twenty-five shows – a record in the business for a newcomer. [Both "unprecedented" and "a record"? And what's the source?] She has done extensive print and/or runway work for fashion/advertising giants,["Giants"? Peacock!] such as [list of brand names].[Source?] She has appeared on the covers of high-fashion [as opposed to low-fashion?] magazines such as Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, Cosmopolitan and Elle.[Source?] This is wretched. If it's being touted as a model for worthwhile articles about models, it's depressing indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was an example of how model articles should be. I did say Tyra Banks was a noteworthy article in response to your saying your not sure of a model notable enough.  Tyra Banks is definitely noteworthy having hosted 2 seperate major television shows, the biggest being "America's next top model" and ...well, this isn't an AfD for Tyra so I'll just suggest you read more about her before saying she is a minor celeb.  But as you've pointed out, her article needs work.--TParis00ap (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, unless there is some evidence that she was notable as a model apart and aside from this one photograph and the response to it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the extensive sources. Her work is continuing, not one event.    DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: She may still be modeling but her notability is based on one event/article. She may have noteworthy issues in the future, but I just dont see it here.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see more than one article--the ones in other languages than English count also. As for notability  being based on o e event, it is not, it is rather based on her continuing career--it is only now being discussed, but that is irrelevant, and not within BLP 1E.   DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You claim her notability is based on her continuing career, but the refs/ELs given do not discuss Miller's ongoing career or even her past career. She is discussed only in the context of one photo and its impact.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 18:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, just to be clear, DGG, you argue that even without the recent publicity -- even if that stuff had never happened, even that photograph had never been taken or at least seen the light of day -- she would be sufficiently notable to warrant an article? Because if you reject BLP1E, that has to be your argument, it seems to me. And it just isn't a credible one. Do you really think it's a coincidence that the article was created a week ago, after the single event for which she might be thought notable broke? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per my comments above.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Here she is on a Japanese news site (in a Japanese translation or derivative of an AFP story), here in Le Temps, here in a Polish magazine, here in Spanish (and with a different photo), here in Norwegian, here in Turkish, here in Lithuanian [that's enough -- ed.]. The whole hoohah is arguably very silly, but then again arguably it goes to show that the whole fashion/modeling enterprise is very silly. I'm praying to (this) St Camille for guidance here. -- Hoary (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of your point here. The sites you've linked to all discuss the same old Glamour photo.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 20:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Or more precisely, pair of photos. The point is that there is a surprising degree of coverage by newspapers, magazines and the like outside the anglosphere as well as within of this "event" (or, if this were a sane world, non-event). For the two photos and the text about them, this person seems to be getting about as much comment on her appearance and modeling as do established models; indeed, I suspect that she's getting far more. Certainly there are things -- or at least there's one thing -- that the punditocracy can find to say about her. (Contrast the regular modeling sleb, for whom Wikipedia might dutifully provide birth and upbringing, "discovery", list of appearances, and the occasional temper tantrum or personal vice.) &para; Above, you cite WP:BLP1E. This now consists of three fastidiously written paragraphs. The first is about a person [who] essentially remains a low-profile individual; however ridiculous this kerfuffle might seem to you or me, she doesn't essentially remain a low-profile individual. (By this time next year she may have reverted to that status.) &para; The second paragraph explains why/when it would be better to have "Lizzie Miller" be a redirect to an article on the relevant "event". The event (in my view non-event) here is partly the unconventional (for a conventional fashion mag) portrayal by an otherwise conventional fashion mag of somebody who breaks the mags' self-imposed rules, partly (I think) the welcome that this got more or less directly from one or two pundits, and partly a wave of meta-talk: News articles and pundits saying "Look what a storm of news and punditry this has led to!" (The "style" pages have to find something to witter about, and the "news lite" pages perhaps wanted a change from nutty birthers and angry teabaggers.) If this should be directed to an event -- well, the event seems best (and neatly) known as "Lizzie Miller. &para; The third paragraph is problematic. It reads If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. [...] The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources. If this is a significant event, Miller's role within it is unassailably significant. Obviously we won't know how persistent coverage will be until enough time has elapsed for it to persist, or not. This is certainly not an article I'd have created, and I'd tend to say that time should be allowed to elapse: after all, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". However, it's blazingly obvious that Wikipedia is regarded as a news digest by many of its creators (note the right hand side of its top page). &para; My own hunch is that significance in modeling (as opposed to general slebrity) comes from your appearance and the discussion thereof, and that Miller's appearance has already generated more discussion (however repetitive or vapid) than have the totals of most selections of half a dozen members of the category:American female models. In an evil deletionist ogre mood, I'd be inclined to go through that category with a scythe (or machine gun), otherwise, I'd let those interchangeable waifs, and her, remain. After all, she has been commented on by a philosopher in a Lausanne tabloid. (Hmm, would an anglophone tabloid invite any philosopher to comment on anything?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'd personally prefer not to see models on Wikipedia at all, not merely because they're prominent in their, um, profession, anyway. But if we gotta have 'em, I say she deserves to be included as "notable" even for this one shot (see link from article). It seems more notable to me than being on the cover of Vogue or whatever. Ohiostandard (talk) 12:27, 18 September 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.