Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Elizabeth Michaels
I'm not without sympathy to the previous deletion votes, the article still reads like a puff piece.  But  is clear enough, and "Special Events: A New Generation and the Next Frontier By Joe Goldblatt", p. 354 http://books.google.com/books?id=6NI8-r59D0AC&pg=PA354&dq=andrea+michaels+events&hl=en&ei=PHB-TfzDI4issAOi6LT8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=andrea%20michaels%20events&f=false and http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/46600664.html?dids=46600664:46600664&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+23%2C+1999&author=MAGGIE+BARNETT&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=VALLEY+BUSINESS+%2F+ADVANCING+WOMEN%3A+PROFILES+OF+SUCCESS%3B+Spectacular+Events+Keep+Encino+Firm+in+Demand%3B+Entertainment%3A+Staging+big+productions+for+major+companies+is+a+hectic+but+profitable+venture+for+one+Valley+entrepreneur.&pqatl=google this piece from the LA Times appear to be from reliable, secondary sources and to provide signficant coverage of the subject. I would suggest deleting almost anything left unsourced or sourced from primary sources, but that's a content issue, not a deletion vs. not-deletion issue. Even the book source semi-interview needs to be treated with care, but I'd say some of the early introductory comments, including awards won, are reliable enough
— User:Joe, 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)