Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military career of Keith 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 redirect‎ to Keith Miller. L Faraone 22:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military career of Keith Miller

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Keith Miller's military career is not notable. There are no sources which cover his military service separately from the rest of his life. This article never should have been created. It's well past time we dealt with this excess from 2008. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Australia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have articles for individual seasons of other sports. I think the book references are enough to establish notability. I discovered that the main Keith Miller article is too large for IAbot, which is an argment in favour of keeping this article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for taking a chainsaw to that article. This isn't even about sports it's about his military career which is not notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the reason for deletion smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no notability issue - the book references clearly show that Miller's military career is covered by multiple and valid independent sources, and insofar as it concerns one aspect of his life it's a valid split of the main article. The nominator needs to go and read WP:LENGTH and find a proper reason for deletion, otherwise the nomination should be withdrawn. Deus et lex (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
75% of the article has zilch to do with his military service and is merely prosified cricket statistics. It is you who needs to review Wikipedia policy. This is a worthless fork born from the ~2008-2011 cricket insanity which formerly gripped this website and led to ridiculous stuff like Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 because people decided to forget WP:NOTEVERYTHING existed in favor of writing entire novels. But if you all prefer to keep articles about nothing, I guess that's your prerogative. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting in things like "this is a worthless fork" and "ridiculous stuff" as a genuine response to asking someone to justify their nomination is really not helpful. You are engaging in bad faith nominations for no reason, and to be honest you really have a generally bad attitude towards other users on AfDs - this isn't the first time you've generally just attacked someone else because they call out the lack of any suitable reasoning. If you can't be constructive, please just stay off AfDs altogether. Deus et lex (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  You are engaging in bad faith nominations for no reason Bad faith nomination? That's a nice one. This was a perfectly valid good faith AfD, you just don't like it. I will not be bullied out of AfD by you. Just because a few editors appear everywhere to say keep with zero rationale doesn't make AfDs "invalid". Do feel free to keep making personal attacks though, as you undermine yourself every time you do so. If you have an issue with me, you know how to find ANI, but your own conduct would hurt your report quite a bit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are book references here that give in-depth coverage of his military career. I'm not really seeing a suitable reason for deletion here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly in-depth coverage of cricket statistics, but we aren't a cricket fansite. Miller's military service is an afterthought in this article in favor of play-by-plays of cricket matches, failing to show any encyclopedic value. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Rugbyfan was suggesting there are sources available that justify the content of the article. Saying that "we aren't a cricket fansite" has no reference to any Wikipedia policy and again is a bad faith response. Don't just attack users when they call out your lack of reasoning. Deus et lex (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:NOTFANSITE. Please stop lying, it reflects poorly on you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keith Miller, where most of the content is already included. Frankly, this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Miller gained essentially no notability during his military career, and this is largely WP:UNDUE detail, which is mostly duplicated in the main article as well. As to the coverage in sources, it appears that the coverage is largely as a less important facet of Miller's life, not as a stand-alone notable subject on its own. There's no real basis to include this content in a separate article, rather than in pared down form in the main article. Hog Farm _Talk 02:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keith Miller, no independent notability imv. (t · c) buidhe 02:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete, per Hog Farm. Wikipedia is a summary site, not an exhaustive repository of all factoids. That SIGCOV is necessary for a topic to have a standalone article does not mean a standalone should be created for every individual aspect of a notable subject that receives SIGCOV. Otherwise we would have separate articles on every single article subsection longer than like five sentences. Literally every person highly notable for non-military activities who incidentally also happened to serve would have a "military career" article. JoelleJay (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keith Miller#War service where it's covered in adequate detail. No need for this content fork article. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hog Farm. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per HF and JJ above. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (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.