Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Milliken (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Milliken

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

Fails WP:BIO. This person has received little coverage (no more than a sentence or two in historical texts), and there is little evidence this person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. The settlement named after him is notable; he is not. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BIO Magnolia677 has previously made a nomination for deletion. The basis for Magnolia677's second nomination deletion is unchanged. The article's content is unchanged since the last nomination for deletion. This should be a speedy keep. Or lets do the discussion all over again. The settlement named after its founder is notable, ergo, he is notable. It is not just a "settlement" it is three large suburban neighbourhoods, a high school , parks, GO Train station etc. Unionville(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unionville (talk • contribs) 13:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep. As I said in the previous AfD, which closed unanimously except for the nom, if a town -- even a hamlet -- was named after him, he's notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it state that a town named "Smithville" automatically makes Mr. Smith notable (and deserving of an article). This would mean that W.H. Dewey, Otto Seyppel, Daniel J. Clark, Anthony Hutchins and thousands of other non-notables on Wikipedia with towns named after them should all be "deserving" of a Wikipedia article for just that reason. Please list the policy that supports your assertion. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And so I would indeed argue, if anyone cares to write the articles. Smithville would make that particular Smith notable. Common sense, and if anyone want to open an AfC, I'lll support it. And I've read the objections on the talk p., and I conclude it was indeed named after him.Towns are normally named after people, not families, and there's no other likely person. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as although I see both sides clear here, this is likely a keep because its age and history so any better sources imaginably may not be easily accessible. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Lets look at Magnolia's examples Otto Seyppel didnt found the hamlet. Seyppel was and continues to be an unincorporated municpality ie podunk. W.H. Dewey , Dewey Idaho is a ghosttown and is abandoned. Daniel J. Clark a Clarkstown ghost town is named after him. Anthony Hutchins - Hutchins Landing another ghost town. Milliken Ontario has grown from its founding in 1807 into a thriving community in excess of 100,000 people and they have named schools and a train station after the guy in the last 50 years. And of course there is Fred Foo but that was from the other dicsussion for deletion (Unionville(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.130.238 (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Unionville (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Keep it is useful to know for whom a place is named — it provides a historical context for the name. Johnrpenner (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Johnrpenner has stated that it is useful to know who Milliken, Ontario is named after. If that is the only reason to keep the Norman Milliken article, then it should be merged into the Milliken, Ontario article. Notability is not granted upon an individual just because a town is named after him, and it is not removed from a notable person if the town named after him becomes a ghost town; it is based on the notable accomplishments and significant coverage of the person in historical texts, and for Norman Milliken, there is but a sentence or two. He was not notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Norman Milliken was the son of Benjamin Milliken the founder of another community the City of Ellsworth, Maine, USA. Father and son founded different towns separated by a 1,000 kilometres in different countries. Norman Milliken is part of the record of the colonization of North America and European settlement. The references provided concerning Norman are recent and numerous. He made, and continues to make an impression. Founding a town and naming it after him, along with a high school, parks, a train station, political ward etc over a 150 years after his death suggests incontrovertible notability to me. A ghost town is a town that is forgotten and abandoned - who cares who founded it. Founding a failed hamlet is not a notable accomplishment. Founding a town that has existed and prospered for over 200 years, is.(Unionville) (talk)Unionville (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's notability policy you are not correct. I care little about his legacy. He is not notable; the settlement named after him is. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am disappointed to see the repetition of arguments which are identical to the arguments raised on the first nomination for deletion, by the same user, with no new information or changes in the article to warrant the challenge. The arguments I made previously have not changed. The article is sufficiently cited to support the claim of notability. I note popularity is not a benchmark of notability. The nominator overstates the threshold for notability in describing the required coverage in the context of this contribution. It seems to me those interested in the name of the place where they may live will benefit from this information being available on Wikipedia. FlettIan (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed as Keep but there's been canvassing going on and plus in light of this on the talkpage[1] I think it's only fair I reopen & relist, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The original source for this article, for the origin of the name of the Milliken community, was Wikipedia itself, a 2009 article on Milliken. The sources are somewhat mixed after but they are split between sources that claim the community was named specifically after Norman Milliken or after his family ie including Norman Milliken. Significantly however there are numerous contemporary and historical references mentioning Norman MIlliken, who died 170 years ago. Norman is the only member of the Milliken family in his generation who has notability in multiple sources both historic or contemporary. There are about a dozen references from different sources where he is mentioned by name. The sources and their number in my opinion establish his notability. His daughter is mentioned once as operating the tavern Norman Milliken owned and established and his two brothers are mentioned only once I could find. Since the second nomination additional contemporary references for his name being the source of the name of the municipality have been added. The names of the neighbourhoods of Milliken Mills East and West in Milliken Ontario both include the word "Mills". The only member of the Milliken family in Markham, at any time, in the historical record I have uncovered, who owned, or even operated, a lumber mill, or a mill of any kind, was Norman Milliken ( he both owned, and operated a lumber mill) . It seems rather self evident whose mills were being memorialised in the community names Milliken Mills East and West in Toronto. Many contemporary sources indicate Milliken was named after Norman Milliken. A school in the Milliken community is of that opinion as is a large municipality, the City of Markham within which part of the community of Milliken is located. Markham City Council passed a Council resolution citing that fact when deciding to name a political ward Milliken Leitchcroft. The next issue is who established the hamlet versus who the hamlet is named after. There are no references I could find that indicate Milliken's Corners was established by "his family" but there are references that Norman established the hamlet. The land comprising Milliken's Corners, Norman Milliken owned, and that is where he built a hotel and tavern. The second nomination for deletion came after no changes in the article by the same nom. How many times does an article have to be defended for the same grounds on a nomination for deletion by the same nom for the same reasons? (This is now effectively the third nomination for deletion by the same nom.) Having said this I wish most of the articles in wikipedia were held to this level of scrutiny and acknowledge that the nom has by nominating the article for deletion led to substantially improved references. I apologize if I transgressed a Wikipedia rule called canvassing but was unaware it is not considered a "best practise". Unionville (talk) Unionville (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Unionville (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Comment The final comment is this. Milliken's Corners the hamlet existed from its founding in 1807 by Norman Milliken til the 1980's when it was subsumed in the larger suburban neighbourhoods of Milliken, Milliken Mills West and Milliken Mills East in Markham and Toronto ( which incorporate the former hamlets of Milliken's Corners , Hagerman's Corners etc ). This might explain the possible difference in the older versus the newer sources. The newer sources most of which indicate Norman Milliken is the source of the name of Milliken, aren't referring to the origins of the name of the hamlet Milliken's Corners, but to the origins of the names of the new neighbourhoods of Milliken , Milliken Mills West and Milliken Mills East. Hence the change in the name to add Mills etc Unionville (talk) Unionville (talk) Unionville (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep Could be merged to the town. First I must say NOTABILITY IS NOT INHERITED. The fact that someone's name got attached to a town that became notable is not sufficient to make that person notable. And it certainly doesn't imply that there exists sufficient sourcing to write an article on that person. Next, I find it bizarre that people in the area have an odd fetish for making a significant number of one-sentence passing mentions of this name one utterly trivial factoid. That's hard to ignore, but that's also hard to reconcile with our notability policy. Ourroots.ca pages 74-75 is the best source. The half dozen-or-so sentences is rather light for a sole-source "significant coverage". However in combination with the numerous passing mentions that's adequate, especially because the combination is rather suggestive that additional sources may exist. Final note: I find it bizarre that this pointless boring bio would attract such passing-mention source bombardment, that it would attract canvassing, and that it would attract vehement AFDing. Alsee (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC) (revised to Merge or Keep Alsee (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - After reviewing all sources cited in this article, it is difficult to find any notability to this person.

The most reliable and lengthy historical source is this, which states that Norman Milliken had a lumber business, bought a tavern, used German Mills to grind stuff, and sometimes rented a flour mill. That's it.

This source also seems reliable, and states that Norman was not the first to settle the area, and that he "owned a lumbering business with a supply contract to the British Navy. Milliken also owned the hotel/tavern which was operated by his daughter, Charlotte."

The rest of the sources are a hodge-podge of one-liners, and some of the sources cited don't even mention him. There is also nothing stating that this settlement is named after him (many sources say it is named after the "Milliken clan").

Does this person pass Wikipedia's general notability guideline, which calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources"? Not a chance. A one-liner here and there does not make a person notable. This person also fails the rest of the notability requirements listed there.

Does Norman Milliken pass Wikipedia's biography criteria, which states that the person has:

"received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times".
"made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field".

Hardly. A one-liner that Norman Milliken started a lumber business and owned a tavern is certainly not part of Ontario's historical record.

At best, a line should be added about Norman Milliken to one of the local Wiki articles about this area. This person does not pass Wikipedia's notability criteria, and the article should be deleted. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677, I agree everything about this bio is lame. I agree everything about the sourcing is incredibly marginal. Maybe I'm setting the bar too low because I keep seeing so much WP:otherstuffexists crap articles. Basically I'm applying the opposite of WP:recentism. For whatever reason, people out there have preserved this individual's name for over a hundred and seventy years. It is clearly going to endure for the next thirty years much better than a lot of our better-sourced recentism articles. That said, merging into the town's article is a decent idea. I revised my !vote to merge or keep. Alsee (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The owner of a lumber mill was a very significant personage in a pioneer society where the first order of business was to clear the land preparatory to agriculture. Who was Norman Millikens lumbering mill client - the British Navy - the navy of the world superpower in the 19th century. Norman Milliken is very notable by the standard of a very small early 19th century colonial settler society which is why however small, he might appear today, his name just keeps popping up. Unionville (talk) Unionville Unionville (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Contemporary references mentioning Norman Milliken are evidence of notability — and it is not useful to strip the personality out of the naming of places when I want to know where things come from. Johnrpenner (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Johnrpenner (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Several sources cited in the article state that the settlement "Milliken" isn't named after Norman, but after his family. This has been discussed on the article's talk page, and was corrected in the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Getting any mention at all at the time was rare. The multiple number of mentions in contemporary and historical, while short, suggests that it meets the notable guidelines. User:Nubeli 02:25, 16 November 2015 (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.