Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erick 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 Userfy at the request of the author. As NatGertler pointed out, there is a possibility of significant additional coverage in the near future. Userfication will allow 301man to work on the article, once his personal life permits, in several week's time. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 06:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Erick Miller

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is absolutely no evidence at all that the subject of this article satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (It was created by an editor who, according to his own statements, has a connection with the subject of the article.) The references are links to two websites belonging to Miller's own company (vergencelabs.com and www.epiphanyeyewear.com) and a page on CrunchBase. CrunchBase is an open Wiki which anyone can edit, and the page is also purely promotional in character. My Google searches (Carefully filtering out hits referring to other people called Erick Miller) have produced LinkedIn, Wikipedia, IMDb, Twitter, etc, but nothing to suggest that there is any coverage in independent reliable sources.

The article contains links to 14 IMDb pages. For the benefit of anyone reading this who does not have experience of how Wikipedia treats sources, I will explain that IMDb is of no use in establishing notability, for two reasons: (1) anyone can submit content, so it is not a reliable source, and (2) it includes virtually anyone who has ever had anything to do with making any film, even anyone with a very minor role in making a very minor film. Nevertheless, I looked at six of the IMDb links at random, to get an idea of how prominent Miller is in the film world. First, I looked at the IMDb page for Tangled (2010). Miller is not mentioned on the page at all, so I moved over to the "Full cast and crew" page. This page lists 445 names, starting with the directors, then the writers, then the cast, the producer, the executive producers, the music composer, etc etc, down through the art department, the sound department, the casting department, and so on and so on down to a section just headed "other crew", and finally there is a section just headed "thanks", which contains 11 names, including Erick Miller: no explanation at all of what he is being thanked for. On the whole, that does not suggest a major role. Next, I looked at the IMDb entry for Willard (2003). This was a similar picture, except that it does actually tell us what he did for the film. The full text of the information given about him is "Erick Miller ... character rigger: Digital Domain (uncredited)". I checked four more IMDb pages, with much the same sort of results for all of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see your point.Deb (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- JamesBWatson: I am in direct communication with Image Permissions on Wikipedia regarding the mistakes I made uploading images. I've only tried to upload images twice, and I made a few mistakes which I tried to fix, but only got worse. I'm new here and need mentors.  I removed the COI tag because it was moved to the Talk page where we can discuss your accusations.  I have met people like Larry Ellison, Steve Wozniak, John Fry (businessman), Steve Jobs and probably many more named on Wikipedia throughout my travels in California. I'm a retired Contractor, and have been in many famous peoples' homes throughout the world. Some I even shared a cocktail with!  That does NOT mean I know them personally or there's a COI on Wikipedia. When I bumped into Erick Miller in northern and southern California (by accident) I was impressed with how Miller's ideas were being transformed into a possible world changing technology.  I have NOT made statements that make it unambiguously clear that I am or closely connected to Miller. Everything stated on the page is information found online or through conversations with people (I realize I need better cites and references - I'm working on it, and as you know, it takes time.  I purposely removed some of the statements I made and will replace them once I get confirmed references and cites to post alongside them.). I bumped into Miller a few times... intrigued by his past, present and future endeavors. I heard him speak a few times, too when my wife was in LA attending a conference. He's a presenter or some form of expert for some software based out of (I think) Canada which I still need to research to get the facts straight.  Heard he's been all around the world presenting technical subjects which I also need to confirm. Personally, I don't know him well, but believe he's onto something. My wife chatted with either him or his wife, or both, too. I kept digging and discovered he's from Wisconsin.  I have relatives there, and some of the kids I know used his books in school!   Once bumped into Miller by accident in LA -- snapped a photo. He was presenting to the Academy for some technical art work he did on muscle structure/skin used in films. We chatted briefly, and later I found the piece he made his presentation to the Academy about on youtube.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNCB9wZP8k8  That's the piece of work that was being considered for an Academy Award. So, Miller was there making a presentation to the Academy. That's all I know. I don't know if he actually received the award or not. I know more references are needed. If you can help with the page, that would be great! But having it deleted because you are angry with me for removing your COI tag is not fair. I'm new to Wikipedia and finding it very frustrating. I'm spending more time here than researching which is frustrating, too.  I'd appreciate your help as a mentor here to advance new pages, not remove them. Here's the article that really got me going .... and the work Miller has done and is about to do in the area of new technology: http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/05/why-wait-for-google-glass-epiphany-eyewear-is-here-now-exclusive/ -- I found this quote on a Wikipedia Mentor's page.... It's a good one...... "One of the great strengths of civility is that it helps others to see who is in the wrong - when you answer rudeness with rudeness, it only generates noise that makes it harder for people to properly reprimand the person who started it. Let someone be as obnoxious and disgusting and horrible as they want - respond to them with professionalism and don't sink to their level. By doing this, you strengthen the community, build a happier environment for all of us, and make it all the more clear who needs to be banned for general obnoxiousness." Jimbo Wales  PEACE JamesBWatson PEACE.... Thank you, 301man (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  10:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  10:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  10:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep but kick it to WT:Articles for creation/Erick Miller tagged at the top with as this article screams "new editor draft" being where-as it was created just a couple days ago (19:52, May 7, 2013).  if no-one is opposed to this, I'll move and tag it myself. Technical 13 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not going to question that it could be improved, but his company Epiphany Eyewear (which had been deleted under G11) passes notability requirements with flying colors.  Erick Miller is a little more borderline, but I think that there's enough out there that it's on the keep side of the border. --B (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple of comments. (1) None of the "keep" comments addresses the reasons for the deletion proposal. 301man writes at length about various issues, but not about the lack of reliable independent sources. Technical 13 says that it "screams 'new editor draft'", but again does not give any indication that there are suitable sources. B says that the article should be kept because he or she "think[s] that there's enough out there that it's on the keep side of the border", but gives no indication at all of what is "out there", or where. Presumably if you have found one or more independent reliable sources then it will be easy to state here what those sources are, and if not then saying that they exist although you haven't found them does not help. See But there must be sources! (2) Over the course of years, time and again I have seen the following happen. A new and inexperienced editor comes here in good faith and writes an article which for one reason or another is considered unacceptable. One or more other editors, with the best of intentions, encourage the new editor to spend more time on it, which they do, and the article is deleted again. I have frequently seen the new editor rewrite an article several times and repeatedly see it rejected, only to eventually become thoroughly frustrated and disillusioned. Whatever the intention, it is not doing a new editor a favour to encourage him or her to spend more time on an article that is never going to succeed. There are many situations where temporarily userfying an article that would otherwise be deleted is helpful, but an article on a subject for which nobody has found evidence of notability is not one of them. If anyone can find reliable independent sources that show notability, then there is no point in userfying the article, as they can simply be added to the article and this discussion speedily closed as "keep", and if nobody can, then there is again no point in userfying it, because no amount of rewriting an article on a non-notable subject will make it notable, and time spent on it will be wasted. (3) 301man, you indicate that you think that lack of suitable sources is just a pretext for the deletion nomination, and that my real reason is that I am angry with you for removing a conflict of interest tag. I can assure you that if I got angry every time someone reverts something I have done, then years ago I would either have left Wikipedia in frustration or else been indefinitely blocked. I promise you, the true reason for the deletion nomination is that I see no evidence anywhere of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple commments Notability guidelines are met and third party sources are named. Published works are listed on the page. I will comment more later. Thank you for your feedback. 301man (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not seeing the notability here. The person may have some fame in certain circles, but as yet seem to not meet Wikipedia standards for an article regardless of the references used. As has been stated before. Many people can be referenced with reliable sources, but that does not mean they are notable enough for an encyclopedic article.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The article indicates that the subject is, perhaps, accomplished but I can't see notability from any of the references cited or my own research. I appreciate the effort of the original author to improve the referencing, but the subject is not notable according to WP:NOTE. I have also gone back and re-read General notability guidelines which further consolidates my position in favour of delete. FlatOut 07:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * KEEP I had surgery Friday May 10th and I thought I'd be able to come home and jump right back into this article to get more work done to keep it from being deleted. So, I'm reaching out to editors to keep it going until I'm strong enough to dig deeper on this subject. I have some good leads. There's been some good edits done to make it better and the notability sources are third party. I've read many of the comments about General notability guidelines and find the topic meets many of the Wikipedia standards. But I'm taking pain meds right now and can't get into detail because my head is numb. Every source listed names and talks about Miller. Past sources can be found but as I stated my surgery and meds are keeping me from spending time here dealing with this right now. Need more time.  Thanks for your consideration. 301man (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Userfy Subject falls into a gray middle zone where I am not comfortable !voting in a straight keep/delete decision (subject is getting some coverage, but only within the context of an unreleased product line). However, it seems to me that there's a strong lean to delete - and in that instance I do call for the article to be userfied to its creator, 301man. With the impending release of the product, it seems genuinely possible that he will cross that threshold clearly should the product prove to have an impact. I think it best that the user keep the material in his editing space, so that he can work on it as new material emerges, for some reasonable term. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2013 (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.