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. Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Miller[edit]

Suzy Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Page has not garnered any significant new coverage like past votes boasted would happen. Article still has not identified the difference between this Suzy Miller and another actress of the same name. Basically, she is only known for being a wife to famous men, and notability isn't inherited. ALongStay (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article says she "gained notoriety" for marrying two famous men, but notability is not inherited. She is not a notable actress since she appeared in only one notable film, an uncredited role as "girl at casino". Yes, she was portrayed as a secondary character in a film about one of her husbands, but a Hollywood biopic is not a reliable source. We know nothing of her life before or after those two brief marriages of roughly 40 years ago. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Cullen. Notability is not inherited. I see nothing else here to show notability. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The Kim Kardashian of her day. Hard to find copies of the National Enquirer from 40 years ago, but clearly was something of a minor celebrity in her time. Maybe being married to one famous person meets NOTINHERITED, but here we have quite a few separate exploits, taken as a group, they reach GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I truly do not understand your reasoning in this case, Montanabw, and I usually agree with you. Though I am not fond of Kim Kardashian, there exists an abundance of reliable sources devoting significant coverage to her. Can you point to even two reliable sources (not gossip rags) that give significant biographical coverage to Miller as a person, as opposed to her flamboyant husbands? Imagined coverage in an unreliable source like the National Enquirer is not worthy of discussion, is it? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm using a certain amount of humor here... Kardashian is really only "famous for being famous" and really one cannot point to any actual accomplishments for her, either. Seriously, the only real difference I see is that Kardashian is famous in the age of Google, Miller was not. I can't say that Kardashian has much serious coverage devoted to her, but she has pictures that "break the internet" so of course she's notable. Montanabw^(talk) 02:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think I'm digging in here because we need to remember that people in the pre-Google age are harder to find RS material on and the press in that time was more dismissive of women in general. I think that widespread coverage in reliable, third-party publications is met, and though she is best-known today for who she married, this source does also describe her as a "supermodel" -- which in today's world would easily meet GNG on its own. Even what we have is still widespread coverage that steps beyond NOTINHERITED, even if it is primarily due to her marriages. (On that note, one could say the same of Marie Antoinette, really) Examples include: here, here, here. We now also have the movie and of her minor roles, one was credited Montanabw^(talk) 02:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply The credited role was in a completely non-notable half hour film. The "supermodel" term was used a couple of years ago in an article promoting the Hunt-Lauda Hollywood film. I have seen no good evidence that she was a top-tier model back in the 60s and 70s. The three Richard Burton references are almost completely about him and Liz Taylor. Miller is discussed fleetingly. She deserves credit for trying to control Burton's alcoholism, but in that venture, of course, she was not successful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While she would not have become famous without her associations with Hunt and Burton, the fact is that she became a gossip-column regular in the 70s and 80s because of that. I also found a few news articles that focus on her. Looking at Newspapers.com brings plenty of news articles. I regret that the meatiest of them are "premium subscription" only, however. She passes GNG, not just for the sources I've now added to the article, but also for the many sources I can't access, but are there. If anyone has premium access, please check it out. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, She has a great amount of coverage in the usual papers and news sources. I'm also wondering if she is the same Suzy Miller who recorded the Million Copy Hit Songs Made Famous By Diana Ross Sung By Suzy Miller LP cover version 1, LP cover version 2 on the Boulevard budget Exploito record label. This is obviously a cash-in on the fame of Motown singer Diana Ross. Does anyone know if it's Suzy? Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As I said last time voting for this, she has little significance on her own. Without her more notable husbands Miller would not be mentionable for any worthy stand-alone achievements.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's quite a load of news sources but, at best, this is still questionable for its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Agree with montanabw and meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Her celebrity status at the time appears to be obvious. It can be very difficult to find lots and lots of reliable sources for pre-2000s celebrity culture, but sometimes we have to act on the balance of reasonable probabilities. We have to protect our historic record as an encyclopedia and avoid recency bias; If people that can remember are saying that she was a "gossip column regular" and "the Kim Kardashian of her day" then that is plenty enough for me. KaisaL (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Montanabw. There are plenty of sources that substantiate her notability, many of which are cited in this discussion and in the article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep she is described in RS as a "popular model" of her day, and her relationships show that she moved in the "A list" circles of contemporary circles. A notable figure. MurielMary (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2016 (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.