Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Kent 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Kent Miller

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete I searched the internet about Thomas Kent Miller and could not find any legitimate articles to justify giving him notability on Wikipedia. There’re mentions of Thomas Kent Miller and his books in brief on online shopping sites; more in the lines of self publication of his books. I found no confirmation of any awards given to Thomas Kent Miller as a writer or no major publication articles talking about him anywhere, except for a few Blogs. This article mentions his new book "Mars in the Movies : A History," again there is nothing but a few references towards it on various online websites from customers who purchased it. --Seditt (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Try searching under the author's byline, which is "Thos." Kent Miller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.254.184.192 (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: They're no legitimate news articles about Thos. Kent Miller. I found websites such as Amazon, LinkedIn, goodreads, worldcat, target and so on. I found no newspaper articles, magazine articles from any legitimate organization about Thos. Kent Miller or Thomas Kent Miller. If you know of any please post them soon. None of Thomas Kent Miller books are best sellers or have large followings or news coverage about them. I will keep looking but it doesn’t look to promising.--Seditt (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Seditt:

I suppose none of the below legitimizes Thomas Kent Miller, but it is worth mentioning for the record.

Ligament articles: I fear I don't know the term "Ligament articles".

Awards: TKM has been the recipient of no awards.

Major publication articles: Publishers Weekly in 2005 published a short review of his second novel. See http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-8095-0049-9. In 1988 Kirkus Reviews reviewed Baby James: A Legacy of Love and Family Courage written by TKM and his wife about their amazing life with their first son, who was the first toddler to receive a heart transplant and who subsequently passed away. See https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/thomas-jayne-miller-miller/baby-james-a-legacy-of-love-and-family-courage. The book was also reviewed in the San Francisco Chronicle, The Riverside Press Enterprise, and some other newspapers at the time.

Legitimate news articles: Back in 1986, TKM and his wife were mentioned in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and other major publications in news articles referencing aspects of the heart transplant received by their toddler son, Nicholas, but who was known in the press as Baby James in order to keep his and their anonymity, as it was newsworthy at the time. See for example http://articles.latimes.com/1986-04-27/local/me-24034_1_new-heart, http://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/02/us/baby-who-got-heart-implant-dies-as-his-body-rejects-it.html.

In 2005, The San Bernardino Sun and The Redlands Daily Facts, owned now by The MediaNews Group, published an interview with TKM re: his second novel. See https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-10969900.html.

In 2014, the same MediaNews Group published an interview with TKM's wife that mentions TKM. See http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/health/20140318/why-i-came-to-redlands-millers-son-was-heart-transplant-recipient-baby-james.

Mars in the Movies : A History: The publishers McFarland and Company believe the book will receive nice reviews and sell well, but not until about four or five months after the book has been published, which was November 2016. The fact remains, though, that it is the first of its kind.47.153.117.186 (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyleelmocollins (talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

On the off-chance that the original article did not communicate the extent of Miller's contributions to society, the article has been entirely rewritten and reorganized with new material added. Clearly, though, Miller doesn't expect this will change the Wikipedia's gatekeepers somber evaluation. After all, this all began as a sort of gift from an anonymous admirer, and if it fails to "make the cut", c'est la vie!Doyleelmocollins (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course, none of this reorganization changes the gatekeeper's last words, "I will keep looking but it doesn’t look too promising."47.153.117.186 (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)DEC


 * Comment: The Baby James links you provide are about the baby and what happened; they only list Miller as the adopted father. As far as Thomas Kent Miller having his own page he needs to get massive news coverage about something he has accomplished from several reputable news organizations. Example, he needs to write a book that hits the bestseller list that gets nationwide news coverage. His whole page is based on selling books which is borderline promotional/advertisement content which Wikipedia discourages. My suggestion to you is to read the “notability rules,” especially the part about what types of news articles Wikipedia considers acceptable. The administrator will use these rules to decide if the page stays up or gets deleted. Mars in the Movies: A History was not written as a novel, it’s more of a guide with reviews about Mars movies. “Mars in the Movies: A History” is more like reading a TV guide pamphlet of television shows. It’s not likely Mars in the Movies: A History will become a bestseller. If it dose resubmit the Wikipedia page about miller at another time. --Seditt (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment*: Thank you for the detailed overview. Please remove this article before the day is out (Feb. 23). It can never meet Wikipedia criteria. I have done everything possible to shoehorn the article into acceptability. As I've mentioned, it being here at all was some nice anonymous professional colleague person's idea of honoring/surprising Miller.  It will be that person's loss.  All best regards. DECDoyleelmocollins (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with Seditt's assessment of the sources. The notability criteria for authors are not met, and nor are the general notability requirements - this simply means that Miller has not (yet) met Wikipedia's peculiar criteria for notability, it is not an evaluation of his importance or his writing. --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, PW has reviewed one of his books here but a lot more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete review by Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly establish that the trade expected a book to do well, but the lack of reviews in other media indicate that none of his books caught fire.  Beyond that, the only solid source is an article in the LA Times local edition, which is local, and an article in the NY Times about the birth of a baby that, I gather, was adopted by the Millers.  It seems to be a dramatic story, and he wrote a book which I gather is about the adoption, but the book failed to get reviewed or written up.  I'm just not seeing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2017 (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.