Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Harris (professor)

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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW. It seems quite clear that there is no consensus to delete and there are multiple calls for a speedy/snow close. Even the nominator would be content with a non-deletion alternative such as redirection and discussion of such options can continue on the article's talk page. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 16:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Harris (professor)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Run-of-the-WP:MILL professor is not automatically notable because of his daughter (See WP:NOTINHERETED). Open to a redirect to Kamala Harris. KidAd (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why was this nominated for AfD in less than four hours after article creation?[1] Oakshade (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the page for deletion after I saw that it had been created. But I don’t see how that’s relevant. KidAd (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barring any serious BLP issues, instantly seeking deletion to a page without any reasonable time to let editors improve and grow an article is seldom helpful and is frequently a case of WP:BITE. You could have easily just placed a notability tag if you truly felt the topic was not notable. Oakshade (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be odd not to include a page on this individual, bearing in mind the high profile of his daughter (indeed both daughters). I write as a user in Europe, for whom this detail will be informative and useful. 07:30, 12 August 2020 (UCT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjshart (talk • contribs)
Weak keep. It's obvious that recent political events were the trigger for the article creation, but just as NOTINHERITED means that he does not become notable merely for having a more-notable daughter (and ex-wife, and other daughter), it also means that he does not become non-notable merely for having a more-notable daughter. The article's notability should stand or fall on its own merits. I found and added to the article 11 published reviews of his most well-cited work, the book Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution. He also has several other less-significant books on the Jamaican economy but I did find a couple of newspaper articles mentioning them years after their publication, so they're not completely forgotten. I think there's a borderline case for both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. And if there are more profiles specifically about him like the Marie Claire one, he could well pass WP:GNG as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ++ with thanks — FlashSheridan (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think there are enough articles about him to qualify him as notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He might have anyway qualified. He definitely does now with his daughter a candidate for one of the most powerful offices anywhere. And his ex-wife has been on since 2019.--GwydionM (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Slightly weak cases for WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR already combine to a pretty solid case; some GNG coverage as parent of a VP candidate does not hurt. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. for now. Considering that Joe Biden is old and probably going to win the election, the chances of Harris' becoming the father of our first female president will go way up in November. Either that, or it may be a good idea to remove him. leaving it here for 90 days or so won't hurt anyone. Besides, between now and the election, people will be interested as to who this guy is...Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the fact that he happens to be the father of an American Vice-Presidential nominee should qualify him as notable enough for a page here. Particularly since pages aren't created for the parents of the vast majority of world leaders, let alone their deputies. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Neutral since notability is borderline. Weak preference for either move to WP:DRAFT or redirect to Kamala Harris for now but keep the history so it can either be merged into that page or recovered later if and when the subject clearly meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I'm fine with an outcome of "keep" but if that is the outcome, please consider "no consensus to delete" rather than an outright "keep." I expect this person's coverage in the press will increase over time. As such, I expect he will meet WP:Notability in a few months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, there is a flood of coverage in relation to his daughter. While WP:NOTINHERITED is a thing, it does not mean that coverage in relation to his daughter is entirely left off the balance sheet in deciding whether we can write a policy compliant article, when combined with unrelated coverage of his own independent work and accomplishments. GMG ^talk 13:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is notable due to his academic activities and authorship regardless of Kamala, there are plenty of academics with less notability than him with Wikipedia pages.XavierGreen (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close: We can always revisit after the American election if any doubt remains.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per XavierGreen. ~~---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinitrix (talk • contribs) 15:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ditto XavierGreen. Stanford Emeritus alone is sufficiently notable. I further observed the initiator of deletion and the only supporter have allowed political bias to affect their postings before.Drb333 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drb333 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per XavierGreen. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:55, 12 August 2020 (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.