Talk:Sharee Miller

Latest comment: 9 years ago by 128.63.16.47 in topic Notability

Notability

edit

I can't provide a reference at the moment, but I do know that this case has been featured on either Court TV (Forensic Files?) or A&E (American Justice?). I've seen it multiple times. So for what my memories are worth, I'd say this is notable, although the article right now doesn't seem to do a great job of explaining that. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC) - not the article's authorReply

There is a fair bit from a google search. I'd agree that she could be a notable person. Just need some reliable sources. Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I removed the speedy and the unref tag as the article has references and esablished enough notability to avoid an A7. However, the notability is problematic due to wp:blp1e. There's a strong probability that the article will get deleted through an afd. To avoid deletion, I would advise that the context of the artice be reformatted so that the subject is the event, not the person, therby avoiding any [[wp:blp1e] problems. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is a transcript of her appeal in 2003 here which might be useful in reformatting the article to relate to the event rather than the person. Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is a section (in this Wikipedia article) "In popular culture" (if it didn't already exist in June 2008) which answers the questions about Forensic Files and A&E. I recently added that Forensic Files reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

content in isolation

edit

There's a lot of case law citation in the update section that would be easier to understand if there were a little more exposition as to what was actually at issue in the related cases; perhaps some external references if the cases aren't in WP would be suitable, but at this particular point in time, there's a bunch of names thrown into the article with no explanation as to why the underlying information is relevant. Absurdist1968 (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply