Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Baxter Miller

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 delete. Because the two "keeps" are qualified as weak, but this can be restored if better sourcing appears. Sandstein 20:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R. Baxter Miller[edit]

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

This article is a biography of a living person. The subject lacks notability and is not well documented. For instance, there're several claims such as "...he produced what is widely regarded as the first scholarly work..." or "Miller is credited with remapping the historical renaissances..." that are not verifiable and supported by references. This page has been used as a self-promotional article. The only contributor is Dr. Ronald Baxter Miller himself and the only resources provided are his personal webpages. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Notability and WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV policy which requires the subject to be covered out of Wikipedia by secondary sources. Rouhollah Aghasaleh 15:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghasaleh (talk • contribs)

Very Weak Keep if secondary sources can be found. He is the editor of the Langston Hughes Journal, has apparently published many articles in various journals, appears to be the leading expert on Langston Hughes, and this publication is cited by 53. While those items do not precisely match with Wp:Academic, I think there is enough there to rationalize keeping his article. The article does need some toning down in terms of its promotion biography language. New Media Theorist (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The University of Georgia seems to be worse than average at making their internal honors known to the world, but he appears to have become the Donald L. Hollowell Distinguished Professor of Social Justice and Civil Rights Studies in 2014 (taking over that honor from Obie Clayton). That would give him a pass of WP:PROF#C5. But my keep is weak because the sourcing for all this is so murky and it might be an ex officio chair associated with his position as Interim Director, Center for Social Justice, Human and Civil RIghts rather than a personal chair. Incidentally, searching for "Ron Miller" finds some things that searching for "Baxter Miller" doesn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~You can vote only once. You already nominated this for deletion. There're several reasons to delete this article according to WP:DEL-REASON, WP:DEL#REASON, WP:DEL7, WP:DEL8, and WP:DEL9: 1."Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" 2."Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N), and 3."Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons." From WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. WP:SPIP asserts that "Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written; see Wikipedia:Autobiography for discussion of neutrality concerns of self-published sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received." In this case independent sources are not provided to verify the author's claims. WP:GNG clearly explains that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This article, as it is, does not provide neutral secondary sources about the subject. The only provided sources are the subject's personal pages. Also, searching his name nothing significant appears. Rouhollah Aghasaleh 05:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghasaleh (talk • contribs)

Discussion about user's signature

- Rouhollah, could you sign your posts with four tildes? The way you are doing it now, your user name and talk page do not show up as they should. New Media Theorist (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wonder why you're having this problem. I click on the four tildes. Rouhollah Aghasaleh 05:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghasaleh (talk • contribs)
  - It's probably because you're editing your signature on the posts rather than typing four tildes at the end. The tildes automatically generate the links in the signature. Like this: New Media Theorist (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - PS: you can change the way your signature looks on posts. Just go into account preference, there is a tab there where you can change it to whatever you like.New Media Theorist (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - But if you're going to do that, do see WP:SIGLINK for the requirement that a signature must include a wikilink to your user or user talk page (and read the rest of the same page for other suggestions and requirements). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I added links to the user's account. Kraxler (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are two issues here. One is whether this person meets wp:academics, and I would say that on that I would have to go for a "weak delete" - there is one possibly notable award, the one from the Before Columbus Foundation. I cannot find any information about the Daryl C. Dance award. There is a Langston Hughes medal, but the only Langston Hughes award I find is from Washington U in St Louis, (for creative and performing arts), and he isn't listed as a winner, although the site only covers from 2005 onward. Subject is listed as winner of the "Albert Christ-Janer Award" from his own institution -- I don't know if it's recognized outside of the U of Georgia. As another !voter said, his book, for which he won the Columbus Fn award, is cited all of 53 times in G-Scholar, which is not much. The second issue is whether this violates wp:BLP. It has a considerable amount of non-referenced material, which, if deleted, would result in a very small article with very little information. It appears to violate all three of the core policies: NPOV, Verifiability, and No Original Research. That the subject himself provided at least some of the information here, we've also got a COI problem. There are statements like: "Between 2008 and 2012, Miller has produced three well-respected books, and he continues to present his research to audiences throughout the world." which is unreferenced and decidedly not neutral POV. His position of "Hollowell Professor of Civil Rights" is not verified by the page that is referenced, nor by the person's CV which is linked from there. This means that we have unreferenced and possibly erroneous information in a BLP, which is a potential reason for deletion. The only other option that I see is to reduce it to a stub with the few verifiable facts that exist. LaMona (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as the article could be worse but we can also wait for better and there has been more than enough time for improvement and I also found some links at Books, browser and Scholar but not much extraordinary. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 7 October 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.