Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Millerman

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Michael Millerman}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Michael Millerman}})

Absolute non-entity in academia (no position anywhere, a grand total of 2 publications on Scopus, and no citations), with a minor social media presence. Hardly merits an article. Ostalgia (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=daZeskcAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao This is his profile on Google Scholar] and it says that he has 41 citations and h-index of 3. I believe it's too small to meet WP:NACADEMIC. Doesn't meet WP:GNG too. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• :Thank you for adding the categories - I'm not sure Politicians and Canada applies but I guess Academics does, even if this person is super obscure and unaffiliated with any institution. Ostalgia (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• ::@Ostalgia, yeah, I meant to include it in the "Politics" category, not "Politicians" since he's not a politician. I'll fix it now. And since he's Canadian, I also included the discussion in the "Canada" category. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• :::Just to be absolutely clear, I was not complaining. I appreciate the help, it's my first time starting an AfD. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Conservatism, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC).
• Delete. He appears to be a fascist apologist rather than a mainstream academic, so WP:PROF might not be the right standard to use. Regardless, that's a thing that it's possible to be notable for, with in-depth sources. His article lists two published books, so WP:AUTHOR would appear to be the best shot at notability, but I didn't find the published reviews that would let him pass. The Commonweal piece helps, but it's not enough by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

::Is there an WP:RS that describes him as a fascist apologist? If not, the comment should be struck. Regardless, notability is not attained. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC).

:::I don't think there are any RS that do, but there really aren't RS covering this guy at all (otherwise we wouldn't be here!). However, in David's defense, Millerman's doctoral supervisor (they had a very acrimonious split) called him out for {{tq|running w[ith] the fucking fashy [sic] grifters}} [https://nitter.net/wtfis2bdone/status/1565747322478370821#m], which comes really close. It being social media, it's not something we'd use to source an article, but I'd say it sort of excuses DE's comment. Ostalgia (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

::::I was basing my comment on the Commonweal reference, which is titled "just call it fascism" (referring to Dugin) and says of Millerman that he "has the dubious honor of having done more to popularize Dugin’s ideas among English speakers than anyone else", "defended Heidegger and Dugin without drawing attention to their glaring moral and political failings", "treats Duginism with an alarming lack of critical scrutiny", and "popularizes modes of far-right and fascistic thinking" and that his book is "is one of the more ambitious whitewashing efforts I’ve ever read". Although I did not plagiarize the exact wording of the review, I think my wording is an accurate summary of the picture the review paints of Millerman. Whether it is actually an accurate summary of Millerman is not the point: we can only go by what reliable sources say, and that was the only source I found that appeared to have any reliability. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't pass NPROF, NAUTHOR, or GNG as far as I can tell. --Mvqr (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator's many reasons. --Artene50 (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per GNG/NAUTH. SportingFlyer T·C 02:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Easy call. Not notable or credible. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet NACADEMIC. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 15:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR, with no signs of passing any other relevant standard. XOR'easter (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.