Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John J. Miller (journalist)

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. czar 20:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Miller (journalist)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Sources are his personal website, a lecture he once did, and a passing mention about an unnotable online website he made. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Independent authoritative sources are not apparent for either academic or author notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of coverage of his books: The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico. He's quoted numerous places as a spokesperson for The College Fix, which he founded. [1]. Note: See my disclosure. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your admission of ~~being a paid editor with~~ having a COI. I don't think this article shows enough notability for WP:Author, just two reviews of a book on football. Don't be discouraged though, I am sure there is plenty of good work ahead of you. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

So everyone is fully aware: I am not a paid editor and I have not been paid to edit this article. My disclosure is that I am a contributor to The College Fix, which Miller founded. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep as certainly enough. Rpclod noted the need of independent substance sources and they have now been availably shown. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Is a review of a book somebody has written, or quoting that book, evidence of notability of the author? I don't believe it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @PeterTheFourth: One review by itself is not enough for notability. Multiple reviews, especially in high-profile publications and of multiple books, are evidence of notability per WP:AUTHOR #3 ("subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and 4c ("significant critical attention"), as well as likely providing the in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG. Now, in the case of the subject,
- The Big Scrum was reviewed in the NYT [2], National Review [3], Fox News [4], Publishers Weekly [5], among other sources.
- The First Assassin didn't have any noteworthy reviews that I found
- A Gift of Freedom had an academic-journal review [6] but nothing mainstream that I found
- Our Oldest Enemy was in the NYT again [7], Foreign Affairs [8], Publishers Weekly [9], National Review [10], among others.
- The Unmaking Of Americans was reviewed by Foreign Affairs [11], Publishers Weekly [12], and Kirkus Reviews [13] among others.

So with three solid hits, I think he clearly passes WP:AUTHOR. The other two lesser-known books don't help, but they don't hurt either (if a subject is notable for something, it doesn't matter that they're not notable for something else). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"That a book as shoddy and biased as this one should be published by a reputable press is eminently regrettable." Ouch. Still, this does establish that he's an author of sorts. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, "notable" and "respected" may be two completely different things. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes point #3 of WP:AUTHOR, per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 24 July 2017 (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.