Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miller technique

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  1 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

Miller technique
Salvaged from speedy deletion - last time I checked "relevance and factuality" wasn't a speedy criterion. I believe this to be verifiable and noteworthy, so I'll vote keep, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. - Mgm|(talk) 09:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources are provided, I couldn't find this with google. Plenty of other Miller techniques around though. Kappa 09:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep unless proved to be nonverifiable. - Sikon 14:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hunh? How does one prove something to be nonverifiable? Either one can find verifying evidence or one can't. (I'll change my delete vote below if independent verification and evidence of notability can be provided.) -- Infrogmation 14:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless extensive and verifiable sources are provided. As I see it, this is not a technique, but rather something logical that an incalculable amount of people do. It's a concept, not a technique. Non-notable. --Sn0wflake 14:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability or verifiability. No google hits for "Miller techique" Ralley. Googling "Miller technique" "script writing" generates one false hit irrelevent to the supposed subject of the article. -- Infrogmation14:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete lack of relevance and factuality may not be CSD but they sure are criteria for deletion.&mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 15:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A technique less than a year old which has apparently only been used in a short film by two unknown screenwriters. Also I could find no hits on Google. Non-notable by any measure. --Lee Hunter 16:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Essentially the story is made up as you go along. Peter Grey 21:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How is that a reason to delete? Kappa 21:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * see comment Sn0wflake 14:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) -- Peter Grey 21:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.