Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin 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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Franklin Miller

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a mess...looks to have been written by the article subject, and is a promotional resume. And no, AFD isn't clean up, but this guy doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG either. I'm not seeing any sufficient sourcing. This article isn't adding to the encyclopedia and we don't need it. Marquardtika (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Major nuclear defense policy expert. While it is true that someone named Milleredit created the aritcle, it seems unlikely that a policy wonk working at this level stooped to creating his own WP article.  But even if he did, it does not negate the fact that he is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. There are claims here that would qualify him for an article if he could be properly referenced as getting over WP:GNG for them — but the only "reference" being cited here at all is his "our staff" profile on the self-published website of his own current employer. The article states nothing about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this, however, and even going all the way back to its initial creation in 2006 it's never been sourced any better than this — the only other reference this article has ever cited at all was his "our staff" profile on the self-published website of a different former employer, which is not a notability boost. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Searching Franklin Miller Scowcroft turns up a lot of sourcing.  The Scowcroft Group, Atlantic Council and post in the George W. White House make it almost certain that article can be sourced.  and, as Nom says, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, our job is to determine the notability of the subject.  Searching  without the middle initial, and with keywords like "nuclear" in WaPo, NYTimes, gScholar  and elsewhere turns up copious confirmation of notability.  And gBooks, look at this search on: Franklin Miller nuclear (no "_") in gBooks : "Franklin Miller is both the father and the architect of the U.S.-UK dialogue on nuclear weapons policy...",   "As principal deputy assistant secretary, Franklin C. Miller is a civil servant who has been the nuclear major domo in the ...", "Former National Security Council and Defense Department official Franklin Miller (who played a key role in U.S. nuclear policy for the past two decades) said in ...", and  more, similar.   Article needs expansion, improvement.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:HEY I have started improving and expanding the article.  Yes, the article began as as PROMO, (at a guess, someone who works for him wrote it,)  But it's not like he's some unknown actor,  or PR professional.  He has been a major player in nuclear arms policy for decades.  And, yes, sourcing was lousy when page was brought to AfD.  But WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP.  The question here, as always, is whether sources exist.  I will continue to expand, but I urge editors to search books and news archives using keywords, especially "nuclear."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs a discussion about E.M.Gregory recent edits to the article.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am no nuclear weapon strategy expert. However, what does make such experts notable is producing ideas and policies with which serious people engage in policy journals like Foreign Affairs: The Problem With NATO's Nukes; The American Interest: [ https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/01/30/russia-flouts-landmark-cold-war-treaty/Obama's Putin Problem Russia Flouts Landmark Cold War Treaty, Our Year of Living Dangerously]; and more.  Here are searches on him in the Washington Post: [],  one as "Franklin Miller, other  as Franklin C. Miller.'E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Article can be cleaned up and person is notable. Sammartinlai (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Holders of an Honorary KBE are certainly notable per WP:ANYBIO #1. We have always held that CBEs (the grade below KBE) or above meet the criteria. Honorary knighthoods are not that commonly awarded to foreign nationals and are only awarded to very senior people. And it appears that he does have one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The KBE satisfies WP:ANYBIO, and he also seems to satisfy WP:POLOUTCOMES. Atchom (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2018 (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.