Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Danner

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Danner[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I culled a lot of the overly promotional content out of the article, removing the stuff that was sourced by press releases and providing a link to the LA Times article, which ended up being a very trivial mention. I've added some sources, but I will say that I'm not sure that all of them are really usable as RS. She seems to be slightly more notable than I thought she would be, but I'm going to abstain from voting either way until I find out more about what I've discovered.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is pure self promotion. Though the subject is somewhat know, she is very good at self promotion, and this article was created by her public relations people. A negative review of one of her plays was summarily deleted from this article. You will find no negative or critical information of her because she makes sure it gets taken down. She has a terrible reputation with some in her field, and none of it is allowed in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheaterCritic654 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2012 (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.