Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Miller (writer, director)

:{{la|Scott Miller (writer, director)}} ([{{fullurl:Scott Miller (writer, director)|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Miller (writer, director)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This article on Scott Miller was written entirely by Scott Miller. Mr. Miller admitted that he was {{user|Newchaz64}} on Talk:Johnny Appleweed - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johnny_Appleweed&oldid=225135622].

Mr. Miller was advised on the 22nd October 2008 of WP:COI. His response was to pen this hagiography on 27th October 2008.

My view is that such blatant disregard for wikipedia policy and guidelines should be met with blatant disregard for Mr. Miller, by way of the deletion of his article. If & when someone other than Mr. Miller thinks he is notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article, I have no objection to such a thing being created. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Whether he's notable enough or not is debatable, but this is not encyclopedia material. It's a little too self-promotional. The fact that he's not mentioned in the New Line Theatre article also lends its weight.

:By the way, I think it might have been better to use a bit more of a civil tone in your argument; it doesn't seem to me like you're assuming good faith.Planninefromouterspace (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

::Comment: I am no longer assuming good faith, after checking all of his work on wikipedia (not good - serial plugs for his IRL work), and in light of his posting an article on himself five days after being advised on his talk page that there is a COI policy. That's the way good faith is lost: one would not be rational to continue to assume it in the face of overwhelming evidence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Fair enough--sorry if I offended you. Planninefromouterspace (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. And considering the circumstances (and the tone of Newchaz64's remark), I don't see how nom. was being inappropriate. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:CREATIVE. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet our notability criteria, and obvious WP:COI. I find myself asking again and again, What makes presumably respectable people write about themselves in such an embarassing manner? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - despite the COI, there are some good references in the stub and some evidence of WP:notability. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I see that someone has also tried to delete the article on New Line Theatre, which Mr. Miller works for. Will it help if I resubmit this article myself to avoid the COI? This article has legitimate information about a noted theatre artist and scholar, and it looks like it's all well footnoted. As someone living in St. Louis, where Mr. Miller works, I can vouch for the "notability" argument -- he has published many books, lectures, and is known nationally as a theatre scholar. I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, but I have used it for years and I don't understand the upset here... It seems Tagishsimon wants to delete this over an email s/he didn't like...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlottaACT (talk • contribs) 17:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

:Comment. {{User|CarlottaACT}} is almost certainly a sockpuppet of User:Newchaz64, who is in turn Scott Miller. I'm baffled by the comment about an email but if Scott would care to explain, that would be great. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What a circus this has become! If this article is deleted despite its facts, its various sources, and its relevance, then so be it. It seems to me Wikipedia would want to list an author and scholar with five books puiblished in his field (the first in its eighth printing), but if not, okay. But why does it seem that information is less important to Wikipedia than the personalities and power plays (and personal attacks) of its gatekeepers...? Newchaz64 (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2008 (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.