Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert G. 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. ✗plicit 10:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albert G. Miller

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources found. Being a general is not considered sufficient for notability in the absence of coverage in RS. (t · c) buidhe 06:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. What is this? Some sort of campaign to get generals deleted? Serving Wikipedia in any way? I think not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC, sources are largely PRIMARY and so do not count towards notability. Just being a General isn't a pass on notability, I thought we had established that. Mztourist (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find much of anything on this guy beyond what the USAF says about him, which aren't PRIMARY BTW, the question about them is whether they are sufficiently independent of Miller. Personally I think they are (someone at USAF has had to look at his personnel record and put together a summary of his career to date), but given he doesn't meet BASIC because there aren't multiple reliable sources, it's a moot point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, when I said PRIMARY, I meant not independent. Mztourist (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant independent coverage (USAF press releases and non-scholarly bios don't count, in my view) that would establish notability. The aircommando.org link doesn't even appear to mention the article subject. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. I took out two sources as they don't mention Miller at all...both appear to relate to a different officer entirely (one with Special Operations Wing background). Intothat darkness 19:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage available. Does not meet notability guideline. Mommmyy (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2021 (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.