Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warner Allen 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. czar 07:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Allen Miller

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

Self-created article, subject does not meet WP:NACADEMICS or WP:NAUTHOR. PROD removed by a second author whose editing also suggests a WP:COI Melcous (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and article has nothing about the subject other than his occupation, his work, and the fact that he obtained a PhD. Also the self-creator added himself to the page of John_Archibald_Wheeler in the Doctoral students section. TouhouFan9801 (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The parts that matter are not sourced at all. Alexius08 (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious conflict of interest in the form of an autobiography, PhD and the fact that his research is being archived does not mean notability. No secondary or tertiary sources. NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 03:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citation counts from his Google scholar profile [1] should not be taken at face value as they appear to include works not by the subject (e.g. Giles 1970 and Fisher 1991, both of which are counted by GS towards Miller's h-index). And as I look more carefully through them, I see that the highest-cited paper lists him in the middle of an alphabetical set of an enormous number of authors from over 100 institutions, and the highest-cited paper on which he is first author only has 55 cites. That's not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and his position as department chair at FAU is also not high enough to pass that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication the subject passes WP:PROF or the GNG. – Joe (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2017 (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.