Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Miller (US Army)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Miller (US Army)

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

Fails WP:MILPEOPLE. Military duties not notable; written works are either not published or unnotable (unpublished dissertation; article on internet journal, deadlink); academic life fails WP:PROF. NO RS for "brightest and best" claims. Gwinva (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and insufficient coverage to pass WP:N -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and RP459. The article even states his "low-profile" has "kept him out of the spotlight". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This officer's duties are extremely notable. The small circle around General Petraeus has effectively steered U.S. Army doctrine on counterinsurgency onto a new course - while the US lost in Vietnam, they might 'win' in Iraq - and evidence of that should not be deleted. Note the back-to-back service as an aide to generals - this officer is probably headed for the stars. Vanity words etc should probably be deleted, but we may have to recreate this bio when he becomes a flag officer if we delete it now. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "probably headed for the stars" = "crystal ball gazing," not a valid keep argument. The article screams out for pruning of peacock language: "fabled, impressive, legendary, distinguished, consigliere." No reliable and independent secondary sources are cited for this gushing praise, so I will remove it. [User:Edison|Edison]] (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be doing a good job and advancing in his chosen profession, Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unless he skips full colonel (which certainly happens in my army, so may happen in his) he probably won't receive star rank for a little while. If and when that happens we may need to recreate the article, however, currently its lack of sourcing is a WP:BLP issue. This aside, currently this article does not satisfy WP:BIO due to lack of sources. The subject also probably doesn't pass WP:MILPEOPLE, IMO. Nor do I believe that the published works would qualify him as an author as they do not seem to be major works. If better esourcing could be found, I might consider changing my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being a staff officer under Petraeus doesn't equate to notability. He may have been there, he may have even had a hand in, but nothing really attributes anything to him other than his billet. No other notability is proven, and I'm not at all swayed by the "may need this article later" argument, especially since the jump from colonel (which he hasn't been promoted to yet) to brigadier general is the most precarious in all of the ranks; who knows if he will ever make it, and it surely won't be soon. Honestly, the whole thing sounds like a resume for someone trying to get noticed. bahamut0013^words _deeds 22:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom TomStar81 (Talk) 01:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bahamut0013 - staff officers, unlike flag officers, are not considered per se notable. We'll revisit it when he actually gets promoted to general, but this is premature. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2010 (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.