Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Alan 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   delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard Alan Miller

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The subject of the article is not notable as, after considerable effort to find something, there is essentially limited to no coverage of the subject. Of the few sources that do exist, even fewer, if not all, are in some manner unreliable, if not completely non-useful resources (given the lack of impartiality and (excessive) bias). The existence of this may be for a promotional (or some such) purpose(s), and the page history may suggest potential editorial bias as well. Qwerty Binary (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I found some books on Amazon, but nothing via Google scholar. Nothing in EBSCO either. Not notable enough due to lack of independent secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Also, you are right, lot's of editing done to promote subject, didn't help notability.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I could finds cites on Google scholar to give an h-index of 4 but, of course, this is nowhere enough for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment: I think H-indices and other bibliometrics shouldn't by themselves should not be indicators of notability or the "worth" of anyone who publishes; ideally, literature should be weighed, not merely counted, as expressed by some ad hoc ratio or other number. In the event that H-indices are at all considered, they should be taken for what they're worth as well as with a grain of salt. Hopefully, this makes some sense; I know this is a poorly written comment. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We use citation counts and h-indexes the other way around: if they are high, then that constitutes good evidence of notability. I they are low, however, that is only absence of evidence for notability, not proof of non-notability. So if I translate Xxanthippe's comment correctly (and note that it wasn't a !vote), it says that the citation record for Miller does not provide evidence that he satisfies PROF#1. Nothing more. After all, he might simply meet WP:GNG. Of course, up till now, we have no evidence of notability (and logically speaking, we cannot have evidence of non-notability...). Hope this doesn't obfuscate even more. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for explaining the H-index in the context of Wikipedia. I mightn't have formulated my thoughts too clearly, haha; but, as one who works with literature and research, now and then, even high H-indices aren't necessarily good evidence of notability. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I like the basic idea behind the H-index, but my feeling is that it overweights numbers of papers relative to citation numbers. Someone with even one paper > 1000 citations is probably guaranteed notable. Dcrjsr (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Every number has to be taken in its context. As I said above, a low index is not proof of non-notability. In you hypothetical example, someone with an h-indew of 1 can still be notable. But it doesn't work the other way around: a high index is proof of notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Miller seems to be a useful expert on unusual crops for small farmers (see the link to permaculture interview) altho he clearly is in it for the consulting money, and he may possibly be useful to people interested in mysticism, biodynamics, psychedelics, etc. But he is a total kook in his garbled comments on science (such as audible holographic effects from the genetic sequences on chromosomes).  He is most definitely NOT a biophysicist, and I am removing that category from the page. Dcrjsr (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks. I was rather baffled as to why he was categorised as a biophysicist unless the term is used incredibly loosely. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fringe researchers such as he appears to be need high-quality mainstream sourcing in order to provide an adequately neutral overview of their contributions, and no good sources are visible here such as (if they existed) would let him pass WP:GNG. I'm not convinced that he should even be evaluated by WP:PROF (the article portrays him as an academic but gives no evidence that he actually is one) but appears to fall far short of that bar too. Finally, more as a comment: I'm a little surprised that this was relisted. Three delete opinions (over that of the nominator) with some discussion but no dissent seems pretty clear to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2012 (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.