Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harald Dahl

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Dahl

Contested prod. No claim to notability other than being father of author Roald Dahl. References appear to prove Roald's notability but not necessarily his fathers'. RadioFan (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Roald Dahl. Harald Dahl is known only as the father of Roald Dahl. Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roald Dahl. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --> Roald Dahl Not individually notable. Harald Dahl was a somewhat successful shipbroker,^[1] but his alleged notability rests solely on the fact that he was the father of Roald Dahl. In fact, most of what is known about him stems from Roald Dahl's autobiographical novel, Boy. For these reasons I do not think he warrants a stand-alone article. decltype (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rather than merging, it would be easier to expand Roald Dahl with relevant information directly from the sources. decltype (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Notability cannot be inherited by an ancestor! :-) — 141.156.175.125 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ignoring Roald Dahl, and looking at this objectively, I see a person with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All I see above are complaints about his notability being connected with Roald Dahl - that is not a policy justification for deletion. There is, quite simply, ample information available in reliable sources to construct an interesting article about this individual. Therefore, this person meets WP:GNG. Chzz ► 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources? Joe Chill (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apart from the ones detailed in the article? 2 minutes Googling has found me Peerage.com and Bute History - both of those look good, for a start. Chzz ► 22:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sources in the article don't show individual notability. The first source that you posted is a trivial mention.Joe Chill (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment – That Guideline sez:
        "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject
        If a book by the subject's own offspring is not affiliated, then I don't know what is! :-) — 141.156.175.125 (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And the second source is definately not independent of the subject. The page is about his time in Butetown and the name of the site is Butetown History and Arts Center. Joe Chill (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - (EC) ******I have just given several sources that are truly independent of the subject. thePeerage.com was not written by either of the Mr. Dahls. The connection with the author really is besides the point. If this were another random individual, we would look at them and see that they have significant coverage in reliable sources - and thus would permit an article. Because this person happens to be related to another seems to be affecting judgement. I am not claiming any forn of reverse-inherited fame. And re. 'not independent' - Butetown History and Arts Center - what on earth do you mean? Chzz ► 22:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would still be independent, unless Dahl had a connection with the Arts Centre. Geographic proximity to a source doesn't make it non-independent. The peerage.com reference on the other hand is useless - it cites Wikipedia as its source. ∙ AJCham ᵀᴬᴸᴷ 23:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So that would be one with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It isn't affecting my judgement because I treat all biography articles the same. I just think that no one has shown individual notability. Most of the sources are books written by his son. Joe Chill (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Has anyone else noticed that this article was deleted by {{Prod}} back on 2007-01-03?
(closing prod non notable father of respected author in and of itself is not notable)
This incarnation has already had a WP:CSD#A7 declined, and a WP:PROD contested, so we're here to reach a consensus. — 141.156.175.125 (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has no independent notability and the article isn't so long that it would be in any way problematic to include it in Roald Dahl where it belongs. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2009 (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.