Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Miller (D S Miller) - Author


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Donald Miller (D S Miller) - Author

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Disputed prod. Bio, almost certainly autobio with no evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth 13:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete can't see any evidence of encyclopaedic notability by our notability guidelines. Can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, although any search is bound to be hampered by a common name.-- Beloved Freak  13:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —  Beloved  Freak  13:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —  Beloved  Freak  13:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability that aligns with WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, although like the above user said, this could be due to a common name making it hard to find references, but from the article author's initial draft of the article, it does not seem likely that much more will be found. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I hate to make an argument without a source, and while there are sources for this author (you need to search "Internal Flow Systems" in addition to Donald Miller to filter out similarly named people), I'm having trouble finding ones that are reliable. There's a lot of references in forums, etc that imply that this is the standard book in the field, but it's hard to find an explicit reference to that, because honestly why would you review the standard book in the field? Instead you get a lot of book store hits, like I said forum hits, a decent number of citations - all of which suggests notability but also suggests that it would take some digging to find explicit proof. So I realize that my argument doesn't have any definitive backing to it, but my point is I think this subject can be shown to be notable, but it would take a little while to find evidence. Jztinfinity (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2011 (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.