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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Averill (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)

No coverage in reliable sources other than passing mentions. No indications of any awards or anything else that would elevate her to WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. John from Idegon (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Variety called her a "TV writer to watch" in their top ten list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Passing mentions such as the one mentioned above are all you can find on her. That means she is not notable. John from Idegon (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 800 words [estimated] and a portrait photograph is not by any definition a "passing mention." Her imdb listing, detailing a rather extensive body of work in just 6 years, isn't a passing mention either. Bustter (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She created a series for CW, a minor network, after a term as primary staff on a highly successful major network series [which netted her Writer's Guild Award nominations in each of the past 5 years] -- her career trajectory alone, based on verifiable credentials, makes her notable. You aren't likely to see a lot of press for her from her time on staff of The Good Wife because only the show runners [in this case, Robert and Michelle King] are customarily permitted to discuss the show's creative aspects. Star-Crossed -- which is a pretty bad teen soap -- is likely to be cancelled, but her career is mostly ahead of her.Bustter (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a part of an article discussing several other folks, yes, the Variety thing most certainly is a "passing mention". It is NOT an article primarily devoted to her. And there is not one thing in the entry above that bestows notability. Notability comes from substantial coverage in reliable sources, not from being "good" at something, or even less from having the potential to be good at something. In a strange sort of way, notability is a "popularity contest". Not one where the person's popularity among fans or Wikipedia editors matter, but where there popularity with the media does. Her career trajectory, whatever that means, does not bestow notability. Coverage by reliable sources is what notability is all about. Show me some coverage, to paraphrase a movie. John from Idegon (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The Variety article is relatively brief but it is substantive and makes an explicit claim for her prominence. As the creator of a broadcast network series, and the recipient of multiple coverage, I think there's enough here to sustain an article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:39, 8 May 2014 (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.