Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vance 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Vance Miller

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I was advised by to send this to AfD rather than proposed deletion on my talk page due to it being controversial. My rationale, which I stand by, is "Almost entirely negative NPOV-violating BLP. Newspapers are generally accepted as being unacceptable sources for BLPs and this relies almost completely on them, save for: one Amazon reference; one Government website; his website. I say we bin this per WP:TNT." Laun chba  ller  20:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am unsure, but I am glad that we'll have a chance to look at this. It does look like a bit of a hatchet job.  However, the sources look good: BBC, national newspapers, etc. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep He's been the subject of coverage in a specific BBC program, "The second programme in the Notorious series which lifts the lid on four of Britain's most controversial entreprenuers" and no end of newspaper coverage. "Almost entirely negative" is no reason to delete, and this article seems to source every claim it makes. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree that the article reads a bit negatively, however it is well sourced and makes no false claims. Any part of the article can be re-evaluated to either be kept or removed, but the subject as a whole is relevant and well sourced and should not be deleted. - -Taketa (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article isn't NPOV, it says he's unsavoury because he is. Perhaps he should do some charity work and redress the balance!!! Szzuk (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2014 (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.