Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Millar


 * 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 without prejudice against recreation. I hear and agree with the comments by my colleague DGG, whose judgment I trust, but it seems fairly clear that the consensus here is delete'''. - Philippe 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Angel Millar

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

NN. General notability states that the person needs to have received an award or been nominated for many. Millar has not. He also has not made a wide-ranging contribution to his field. While he has written a Masonic history book, I had never heard of him or the book until I saw his WP article. GHit-wise, it's his website, WP, and then Amazon (where the book is no longer available new). The statement in the article about his "works being prized in Masonic collections" is misleading - there simply aren't that many such collections. The Museum of Our National Heritage in Lexington, MA, and the George Washington National Monument in Alexandria VA are the two leading Masonic museums in the US, and they have none of his work. The Masonic and esoteric research groups he is a member of are open to anyone who pays for membership. As a creative professional, the requirements are: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors - No. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique - No, he is notable for making Masonic memmory ais that no one makes anymore because every place that needs one has one. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews - No. A gift given to the Grand Lodge of New York's library and covered in their in-house magazine is not independent. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries - No. The first three are not met, as shown above, and there is no indication that his work has been seen anywhere aside from New York. Therfore he meets none of the criteria for notability. MSJapan (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Gray-martyn (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wow, what a thorough analysis. The nom says it all here -- this guy, plain and simple, fails all the notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * not so fast Freemasonry, a history is, according to WorldCat, in about 70 US libraries. Given the general scarcity of public and academic coverage of the subject, that might be significant. The publisher, Thunder Bay Press, is a fairly wellknown specialist publisher, not a vanity publisher. and as Masoneria : zarys dziejów it has been translated into Polish. Not saying one book makes him notable, but also not willing to assume the art isn't notable either.  I don't trust that anyone has "said it all" till I've looked for myself also. Not saying the nom is wrong, but needs a search by someone else also who knows the subject.   DGG (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm willing to consider that he's a notable historian of Freemasonry, but the lack of secondary sources in a search of Google Books, News Archive, and Scholar is not promising. Many of his publications have not been in fully independent journals, either. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to be a fairly minor researcher, nothing stands out to establish importance.  KleenupKrew (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is completely unsourced, and makes no claim to notability. Doing some research and writing a book (even a book on obscure topics like the history of Freemasonry) does not make an author notable (anyone can write a book) - as the nomination states, there are criteria that make an author notable and this author has not met them.  He does not meet the criteria listed at Notability (people) nor those listed at WP:PROF. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete. - the article, granted is unsourced, but as it contains information on a publishing author can be still maintained. It may not be of a notable subject, but as the freemasons are obscure i belive that this article should remain. failing this this article could be merged with the larger article of Freemason and included as a subject of interest under a new topic of Freemason publications perhaps
 * Comment... are you saying we should have an article on an author who is not notable, simply because he wrote about an obscure topic? That just does not make sense to me. Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.