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. MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Louis Miller[edit]

Robert Louis Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A promotional piece written to exaggerate the contributions of Robert Louis Miller. The creator has claimed him to be a writer and legal commentator, not supported by any reliable reference. The page must be deleted. Zunailmeredia (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable for his expertize on the prison system as the Washington Post and other news agencies reached out to him for their articles on reviewing prison's on Yelp.Sgerbic (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable, work is being done to improve the article. We have received information from the subject that indicates this deletion might be an example of an "Orangemoody" style blackmail scam. --Krelnik (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is exactly the kind of articles that people can use to show that Wikipedia is a joke. He is notable because he reviewed prisons on Yelp? Why did he do it? According to the Washington Post article referred to: "I started reviewing because I needed something to kill time while I waited to see clients.” This went viral because the enterprise was both useless and quirky. You might as well put in people who post pictures of gerbils dressed up in tuxes on their pinterest pages. Who put it in the Washington Post? Not someone interested in prison reform, but "a digital culture critic." Moreover, among the sources for the article is the webpage of the subject's law firm. It is pure self-promotion. Whether of not this is part of an organized effort, and fellow skeptic Zunailmeredia offers no proof other than his non skeptical say-so, the article does not belong in an encyclopedia. It certainly is not a notable subject, unless everyone who finds a new use of social media, however unimportant, should be on Wikipedia. Efforts to shore him up with references to his non-notable writing on skepticism just shows a grasping at straws. Incidentally, his contribution to the compilation on California Driving under the Influence (published by something like a corporation vanity press), is a 15 page (badly written) excursion in to the sobriety tests. He is neither co-author nor editor. The one Amazon review of the book says there is "nothing new" and gives it 2 stars. If there was ever a puff piece in Wikipedia, this is it. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Opinion noted, but FYI the nominating user has been reported to the "Orangemoody" team via email as a suspected sock. The subject of this article has reported receiving a blackmail email over this deletion. I am told this is OTRS ticket:2016042810015351, apparently still waiting in the queue. --Krelnik (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject has been emailed (which I take means propositioned for a favor or money in order to not delete the article), then the article must have some value to the subject. This suggests even more strongly to me that the article is an exercise in self-promotion. Which it clearly is: It is not generally considered appropriate to have a self-promotional web-site (i.e., the subject's law firms resume) as a reference. The whole article (except for the "skepticism" works, which are not integrated into the article) smacks of an advertisement, in line with using Yelp! to "review" prisons. AnthroMimus (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite - the article was not solicited by the subject at all. See the Orangemoody article, which says, "Please be kind to the article subjects. They too are victims in this situation." The article was created by one account from India (which has gone idle) then nominated for deletion by another account apparently from India. In Orangemoody-style scams, these are sockpuppet accounts being operated by a blackmailer. So please don't cast the subject as the bad guy here, my best information suggests he is not. --Krelnik (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krelnik: You will be happy, I am sure, to learn, being a skeptic yourself, that I am skeptical of the whole story. Perhaps you can explain it since you seem to have some inside information directly from the subject. So, tell me where I am wrong: Someone in India, reading the WaPo digital culture critic decides that someone who out of boredom reviews prisons for Yelp! deserves a Wikipedia article. He/she makes the article and puts it under the auspices of WikiProject Law. Because there is really no 3rd party sources to cite for this subject, he/she, without the subject's knowledge, cites to the subject's firm's webpage. The subject has no knowledge at all about any of this. Then a different person from India (or the same person, who knows?) contacts the subject to "blackmail" him. Unless you do so-and-so I will delete your Wikipedia article! Oh no, says the subject, not the Wikipedia Article I had no idea existed! I am a victim! The second (or same) Indian does an Afd, and the subject contacts someone at Wikipedia to show how he was victimized. (Exactly how he was victimized, I still am not sure. If someone emailed me threatening to delete my Wikipedia article, which doesn't exist AFAIK, I would delete the email and think no more of it.) An investigation is underway into the motives behind the Afd of a non-notable person. Then two people show up to defend the article. Neither seems to have any connection with WikiProject Law, but one decides to shore up the legitimacy of the article by including unrelated items about skepticism, which are really not incorporated into the article. Does this make any sense, except to someone who has an independent reason for wanting this self-promotional article to remain on Wikipedia? I ask this to a person who philosophically requires proof before believing in implausible things. AnthroMimus (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My, you are verbose. --01:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, is this article an orphan? It is not linked from either the Yelp! article or Prison Reform (hard as that is to believe). I can't think of any other likely to link to this subject. And if you look at the categories the subject is listed in: People born in 1968, attorneys in California, you see that the subject is generic. Any of hundreds of thousands of people belong to those categories. The fact that the article is an orphan is an additional reason for deletion. AnthroMimus (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and !vote: I'd like to make a few points about this AfD discussion:

1. As a preliminary matter, I was informed about this discussion on my talk page by AnthroMimus, though my opinions in this matter have been formed though my own independent judgment and should not be attributed to AnthroMimus in any way.
2. It looks like this is a malformed AfD. It doesn't have the usual formatting at the top, and it doesn't look like it was listed properly at WP:AfD. I'm not sure how to fix the technical flaws here, though someone may want to start a discussion at WT:AFD
3. WP:GNG generally requires subjects of standalone articles to have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis in original). As far as I can tell, Mr. Miller has not been the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable sources, though it looks like the prison Yelp reviews have received a fair bit of discussion in the press. Nevertheless, because he has not been the subject of such coverage, I don't think he passes WP:GNG, and this article should be deleted per WP:DEL8.
4. I don't want to speculate about the veracity of the scam allegations discussed above, but whatever the case may be, I don't think that should influence the outcome of this AfD discussion; rather, this AfD discussion should simply discuss issues relating to WP:DELETE.

I am happy to change my mind if someone can show me that Mr. Miller has received significant coverage in reliable sources, but until then, I think deletion is appropriate. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, I posted a thread at WT:AFD in hopes that someone will be able to resolve the formatting issues with this nomination. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to today's log. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - literally missing every single factor that might make him a notable lawyer. I'm sure he works very hard for his clients, but he is just a run of the mill lawyer. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best as this simply contains nothing else actually better convincing, quite so clear. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable WP:RESUME. The writing of jail reviews does not amount to notability for an article on the reviewer; although it might justify a one-sentence mention in Review. TJRC (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2016 (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.