Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Robbins 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. slakr^\ talk / 06:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Robbins Miller

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a person of questionable notability. The sources are trivial listings, mere mentions, connected sources, and a NYT piece apparently written by the subject or his wife. Fails WP:BIO. - Mr X 15:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to recreation in the event he can be shown to actually be notable. As far as I can tell from the article, its sources, and my own brief search, there's no hint that he meets WP:GNG. The only reference actually about the subject is the NYT piece, which is a profile of couples who have made it to 25 years of marriage, hardly a basis for notability for Wikipedia purposes. (Now, notability in my family, that would be a different matter!) Given the claim that he founded the "Center for Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery", " negotiated the release of prisoners", was involved (in some unidentified way) with the film (Daughter from Danang), and "helped train [again, in some unidentified way] the first group of Peace Corps Volunteers", I would expect there to be some significant coverage of him that I'm simply not able to find. If such sources surface, I would not object to the article being recreated with appropriate specificity and sourcing. TJRC (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not mentioned or credited in the article on the award winning documentary. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent stories. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.