Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Miller (astrologer)

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. Sandstein 05:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Miller (astrologer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable astrologer lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. A lot of prediction columns exist, but I see nothing that supports notability using reliable sources. Nothing supports the claim she is a best selling author. ttonyb (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I did find a Wall Street Journal article that relied on her heavily as a source, describing her as 'well known.' Not entirely sure whether she meets WP:BIO or not, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – She probably is popular. I see a lot of astrological columns by her (i.e., be sure to avoid ladders today), but I do not see anything of substance written about her. ttonyb (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom Eeekster (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Users should be aware that Google Hits and Google News is NOT a factor of notability, many of sources can exist outside of the internet if spread through magazines and newspaper. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:GHITS specifically refers to the number of hits, not the quality of Ghits. In fact it states, "... the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number." If you read the nomination again, I referred to the "lack of GHITs and GNEWS of substance." In this case substance means meeting the criteria in WP:RS. BTW - most magazines and newspapers carry online versions that are searchable by Google. ttonyb (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has been interviewed by publications such as TMI Weekly (which I have never heard of). The interview is also available on utube. That would give some depth. If she is writing horoscopes for publications like Japanese Vogue and is mentioned in the Wall Street Journal then she is not invisible. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Interviews are really primary sources. The article lacks secondary support using reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb_Lz76aMzU Her interview to CNN; she actually wrote six books, not three; the last one is a best seller at Amazon.com Senderso (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to CBS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrbG39-4vnA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senderso (talk • contribs) 19:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For CBS again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B41jKnfJpxI

Comment – Once more, interviews are really primary sources. The article lacks secondary support using reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The audience of this article ia very impressive! Speaks for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senderso (talk • contribs) 16:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The size of an article's audience is not a valid reason for inclusion into Wikipedia. Per WP:POPULARPAGE, "...just because an article is popular does not mean it is within the project scope." ttonyb (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have any reliable sources ever written an article about her? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources:

NYTimes
[http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-14/zodiac-signs-change-no-astrologists-say/?cid=video-beast:mostpopular1# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senderso (talk • contribs) 12:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are articles about astrology. Has any reliable source ever written an article about Susan Miller? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not abt astrology --and CNN and NYT rely/mention her, they are reliable sources.

If these are reliable sources and they rely on her... Senderso (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.daphnesolutions.com/1457/astrology-zone-website-of-susan-miller-gets-6-million-monthly-visitors.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senderso (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.knowledgeworksglobal.com/topics/Business%20Growth/Speakers.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senderso (talk • contribs) 22:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.