The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article on Scott Miller was written entirely by Scott Miller. Mr. Miller admitted that he was Newchaz64 (talk · contribs) on Talk:Johnny Appleweed - [1].
Mr. Miller was advised on the 22nd October 2008 of WP:COI. His response was to pen this hagiography on 27th October 2008.
My view is that such blatant disregard for wikipedia policy and guidelines should be met with blatant disregard for Mr. Miller, by way of the deletion of his article. If & when someone other than Mr. Miller thinks he is notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article, I have no objection to such a thing being created. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a circus this has become! If this article is deleted despite its facts, its various sources, and its relevance, then so be it. It seems to me Wikipedia would want to list an author and scholar with five books puiblished in his field (the first in its eighth printing), but if not, okay. But why does it seem that information is less important to Wikipedia than the personalities and power plays (and personal attacks) of its gatekeepers...? Newchaz64 (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]