Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Milliken

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. - The article does need alot and I do mean ALOT of work doing to it but notability is there, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Milliken[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. This person has received little coverage. In the sources cited, there is barely a line here and a line there. There is little evidence this person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain WP:BIO I strongly disagree. This man is notable in every sense of the term. He is referenced in numerous books and is given 3 pages in the book at the last reference His most recent reference a hyperlink is in the references at the bottom a newspaper article from a Maine Newspaper from March 2, 2015! 240 years later they are talking about him in Maine - he and Benjamin Joy are referenced as founders of Ellsworth Maine and references are made to their mills If this guy doesn't pass the test I don't see he would I agree with your assessment of Karl Heisey article it isn't strong this is polar opposite Unionville (User talk) 08:40 , 3 March , 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Milliken was an important enough figure to get significant coverage in multiple published sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO and WP:GNG as an important figure from his time period.--TM 03:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the citations are malformed but fixable and clearly demonstrate the subject's notability. Suggest speedy keep here. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2015 (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.