Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles R. Miller (general)

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. Daniel (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles R. Miller (general) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unable to locate independent, reliable sources with significant coverage. The only reliable independent source cited is the Oxford University Press book, which only cites his thesis (not significant coverage). Other sources are published by his employers (US military and Stanford University), and are therefore not independent. WP:SOLDIER, which granted a presumption of notability to generals, was deprecated. Attempted PROD rejected. (t · c) buidhe 01:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Given his high and important positions as a military officer and coverage in sources, he definitely and obviously probably passes WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What independent, reliable sources cover him significantly? If they exist, you should list them. (t · c) buidhe 03:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was unable to quickly find such sources. I was talking about sources cited on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Stanford University did not employ him. KingEdinburgh (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article states that Miller was involved with the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) at Stanford University. The Stanford coverage is related to this role so it can't be considered independent. (t · c) buidhe 03:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES, general officers are generally considered notable. --John B123 (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. A non-independent source would be one produced by him, not by the US Government or Stanford University. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete fails WP:BASIC. General officers are not presumed to be notable. The sources are largely primary. Mztourist (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is mentioned in two 2010 books on 2nd Iraq War history [1]. Additional citations are difficult to find for a staff officer whose output is largely classified. – Maliepa (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments above. The two books and the newspaper article look like just about enough to pass WP:GNG. Article has been improved following a PROD and again after nomination for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep High-ranking officer who served in important roles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 23 July 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.