Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meena Harris (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meena Harris[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)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Previously deleted. scope_creep^Talk 21:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Sourcing is no better than at the last AfD, and I cannot find enough elsewhere to justify an article here. Her mother and aunt are notable, but per WP:NOTINHERITED, she is not. Edwardx (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as either a writer or an activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep source in the NYT isn't just about her, but it's more than a passing mention. Glamor's coverage is an interview, but a pretty in-depth one. Businessinsider is a great article for the GNG, but the publisher has never struck me as ideal (it is the the subject of perennial discussions about if it's an RS, to no real conclusion). None of the sources is a slam dunk, but over the GNG bar as a group. Hobit (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NY article is one small paragraph to create context for another paragraph, i.e. is a passing mention and the Glamour entry is written by Meena Harris herself and per WP:NOT not usable as a reference.scope_creep^Talk 08:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair on Glamor, I'd thought it was more of an interview. But Marie Claire is an article on her. As is [1]. In-depth articles for sure. Feels like a PR firm was involved however. But both appear reliable. Hobit (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable lawyer. Lack of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. fails WP:NBIO. DMySon 04:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @DMySon: Could you comment on the sources listed above and in the article? Hobit (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Devokewater: could you address the actual sources? Hobit (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have googled + researched her, whilst there are a couple of articles regarding her career, yes she’s attended top Universities and has been involved in various organisations, then again so have other lawyers who do not get the same publicity. Although there are numerous articles regarding her however, this does not mean that she is a notable lawyer, and at the top of her profession maybe just good at PR. IMHO there is nothing notable about what she has done, there is nothing that distinguishes her from other lawyers. --Devokewater (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Devokewater: could you address the sources? They appear to meet the WP:GNG. We don't require that she has done anything that distinguishes her from other lawyers (though few lawyers have articles in Marie Claire and Glamour I'd think...), she just needs to meet WP:GNG. Hobit (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Hobit If you google her there are some articles which talk about her starting; "Phenomenal Woman Action Campaign, a female-powered organization" does this make her notable? Again there is nothing I can see that makes her notable, maybe just good at PR. You mention Marie Claire + Glamour this suggests that she is good at PR IMHO. --Devokewater (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 01:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure she doesn't mee the GNG? The sources seem to be over the bar by more than a small bit. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

She has not won a famous case

Has not acted for well-known clients

Not a respected professor of law

Not a senior partner in a prestigious law firm

She has good PR, non-notable - Delete Devokewater (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remind you that none of those are inclusion guidelines. I appreciate you responding to my questions, but you've not really addressed anything involving WP:GNG. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hobit, her notability is based on GNG/WP:BASIC#1, and not due to her legal career? Britishfinance (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - FWIW, she fails my standards for lawyers, noting that she was a "commissioner on the San Francisco Commission on the Status of Women", which does not count as "service as chair of a major civic committee in a major city." She might pass as a writer. Can we discuss this further? Bearian (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its is a children's book that was published three weeks ago. There is few independent reviews outside the usual places that sell children's books, and the video on YouTube to promote it, has 500 views. Its has been promoted by Senator Elizabeth Warren, contacted for an endorsement via her aunt, who is also a Senator. She is good at PR. I don't see much that makes it a standout show-piece children's book, that is automatically notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the four criteria of WP:NAUTHOR are met. scope_creep^Talk 21:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She appears to meet GNG, with SIGCOV in enough RS: Elle Magazine, Fortune, NBC (Boston), Marie Claire, CBS (San Francisco), Forbes, Business Insider, People (magazine). These are many more (if needed). Per WP:BASIC#1, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. These are full pieces specifically on her – E.g. not trivial coverage. She therefore would meet BASIC#1. Whether ones thinks she is good at PR etc. is ot really the point, she is being covered extensively in good quality RS. Britishfinance (talk) 10:12, 22 July 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.