Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Harper

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. Incoming links is not a valid AfD argument (and was successfully refuted by Randykitty in her comment), and no sources were provided to assert the "widely sited [sic]" fact that he is the author/creator. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Harper[edit]

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

Very clearly non-notable author--it's been here since 2009, so I'm being cautious and bringing it for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:JOURNALIST. He is widely sited as the author/creator of Online Etymology Dictionary. Deunanknute (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Pages that link to "Douglas Harper" show hundreds of references to this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Online Etymology Dictionary. Yes, there are quotes out there and references to him w/r/t the online dictionary, but where is the substantial coverage of this subject to evidence that this subject is independently notable of the online dictionary? None provided in the article, by the keep voters, or from what I could see in Google. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - per WP:JOURNALIST "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.", and "3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The person does not need to have significant coverage of himself, if the work has substantial coverage. See Online Etymology Dictionary for examples. Deunanknute (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any evidence of "widely sited (sic)" or "played a major role...". If you have links, Deunanknute, please provide them. The online dictionary is a one-man web site, without editorial oversight. I actually have doubts about its inclusion in Wikipedia. His books were published by a local historical society. While I'm sure that local civil war research has great value, the requirements for a Wikipedia entry are not met. LaMona (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While having many articles linked to this bio might be an indication of notability (it might also indicate a diligent effort to make it seem so), I don't think that's the case here. Just take the very first article that links to this bio, Americium, and search for "Harper". That "reference" shouldn't even be there... No other evidence of notability found. --Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like most links to Douglas Harper come from this template created by Andrwsc: {{OEtymD}}. Looking at that template, I'm not sure it would not be better to have all instances of its use go to Wiktionary. --Randykitty (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete -- It seems to me that his notability must depend on whether being author of Online Etymology Dictionary makes him notable. That seems to be derivative work. The fact that one Ohio academic thinks it worthwhile is marginal for the site's notability. I certainly think that hardly transfers notability to its author. His local history writing is certainly not significant enough to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 8 February 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.