Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lucas Miller
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Sandstein 08:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John Lucas Miller
- John Lucas Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No clue what would make this person notable. Notability is not inherited. Fails
talk 00:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (]
- Comment- Appears to be this findagrave entry...(broken stone difficult to read) aged 4 years would be 43 years, says leaves wife & 6 sons; entry does not provide any information which advances a claim of notability. Dru of Id (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment His son, who had the same name, would meet WP:POLITICIAN if a source could be found verifying that he served in the South Carolina legislature. I found sources mentioning his military service in the Confederate Army. Perhaps the stub could be rewritten to make the son the subject? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep an article about the son, who meets Nullification Convention, an important precursor to the Civil War, according to State papers on nullification: including the public acts of the Convention of the people of South Carolina, assembled at Columbia, November 19, 1832, and March 11, 1833; the proclamation of the President of the United States, and the proceedings of the several state legislatures which have acted on the subject. His son served in the South Carolina General Assembly in 1853, at the age of 21, according to Reports and resolutions of South Carolina to the General Assembly, 1854. The son served as a Colonel and commanded a unit at the Battle of Antietam (called Sharpsburg in the South) in September, 1862, according to The War of the Rebellion: v. 1-53 (serial no. 1-111) Formal reports, both Union and Confederate, of the first seizures of United States property in the southern states, and of all military operations in the field, with the correspondence, orders and returns relating specially thereto. 1880-98. Colonel Miller served under General William Dorsey Pender, until Pender was killed at the Battle of Gettysburg in July, 1863, according to historian Stephen W. Sears here. Several other books about Gettysburg confirm his Miller's role there, and in the retreat in the days that followed. Colonel Miller was killed in May, 1864 at the Battle of the Wilderness, according to Heroes of the old Camden district, South Carolina, 1776-1861, which gives the general outlines of his military career. Additional biographical information is available in The history of a brigade of South Carolinians, known first as 'Gregg's', and subsequently as 'McGowan's brigade', published in 1866. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So the father and son are notable, is he notable, though? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cullen328. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Without sources in the article all the claims of notability are unsubstantiated. ]- Keep Cullen has done impressive research here. I hope you will find the time to add some of these sources to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As it seemed to me that the son is more notable that the father, I have restructured the article to be about the son. They shared the same name. I've mentioned the father and the uncle briefly, but have added seven sources, mostly about the son's military service during the Civil War. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per hard work by ]
- Keep Historic Interest & notability established. Tom Pippens (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2011 (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.