Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aisha Harris


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Aisha Harris

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet WP:GNG. Aisha Harris has worked for Slate, NPR, and the NYT so the sources from those websites are not independent. The Hartford Courant article is written by her father making it not independent. The Talking Biz News article has very little prose dedicated to the subject and according to the website it is a self-described WP:BLOG by someone who has previously worked at Slate, which would make me question whether even that source is independent or reliable. I can't find multiple sources that clearly demonstrate significant coverage. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article now has enough information and reliable sources to show that it is independently notable and significant. It passes WP:GNG, as such it should not be deleted. Rayopk1 (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if her sourceability improves. Nine of the eleven footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all — staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers, content where she or her father is the bylined author of coverage about other things, etc. — and another just briefly namechecks her existence as the compiler of a listicle without being about her to any non-trivial degree, and still comes from her employer anyway. And the one source that actually is both about her and relatively independent of her comes from a blog rather than a real media outlet, which means it's not a magic key to passing WP:GNG either. As always, the notability test does not hinge on the ability to verify facts in primary sources, it hinges on the ability to show that she's been the subject of coverage in reliable sources (media outlets she isn't directly employed by, books, etc.) about said facts. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added several additional non-primary references on Harris, including interviews with The Root and coverage of her moves in journalism. Article should now meet the minimum for WP:THREESOURCES. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * from what I can tell you mostly added sources from companies she has worked at, which are not independent. The remaining sources would be considered trivial mentions (especially the adweek article that republished her tweet). The only source you've added of any note is the InsideRadio article. I'm still unconvinced that this meets WP:THREESOURCES. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an essay, not policy. Mlb96 (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * yes it is an essay, but WP:GNG is a policy that states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." and if you want a reason why WP:100WORDS is worth suggesting as minimum WP:GNG also states that " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." Just because these are essays doesn't mean they don't have grounding in policy or that they have absolutely no use when assessing notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added another paragraph covering Harris' 2013 story on Santa Claus and the subsequent issues around Megyn Kelly's response. I'll submit the following for WP:THREESOURCES: 1) Harris' move to the nationally-syndicated PCHH podcast (three sources cited in article, none of which are from current or past employers); 2) Harris' article on Santa Claus and the coverage of Megyn Kelly's statements (seven independent sources cited in article, including LA Times, Politico, and a published book); 3) interview in The Root on Harris' writing and approach to coverage of culture journalism (one source). Irregulargalaxies (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell these sources talk more about Santa and Megyn Kelly than Aisha Harris. are there three independent and reliable secondary sources that contain more than a trivial mention of the subject? For instance, do the articles have at least 100 words of nonreptitive content providing useful information about Aisha Harris. Do you mind linking to them here in the discussion so it's easier for myself and other reviewers to assess? TipsyElephant (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I wouldn't be surprised if she is notable, but it's not currently demonstrated by the sources in the article. The best source may be the book discussing her role in the Santa Claus controversy. Everything else has issues, including the Root (just an interview) and the podcast (NPR isn't independent, the other two - inside radio might be okay but the other source is PR "churnalism." SportingFlyer  T · C  13:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat's very good review of the sources. We do not have enough indepdent sources to justify an article, outside of what amounts to one event coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A good example of how journalists and broadcasters are so difficult to source despite being notable by any definition other than Wikipedia's. If the New York Times, NPR, and Slate all think you're a good enough journalist to write about, we say you're notable; if the New York Times, NPR, and Slate all think you're a good enough journalist to hire, that doesn't help your case at all -- in fact, it removes some of the most popular sources from eligibility. I haven't been able to find sigcov about Harris, either.. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lesliechin1 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The notion argued above that we should consider all staff of NPR, Slate and the New York Times as notable is indefensible. We have resisted any efforts to define any particular organizations whole staff of journalist as notable, and we should not end that now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. I don't think all staff at the New York Times are notable, but as an opinion editor surely she would be. I gently remind folks/fen that we need to consider and to counter systemic or inherent bias. Black women get less coverage for the same or greater accomplishments than certain other people, perhaps due to misogynoir. I'm not saying that our editors have such bias; rather, the larger media does. We Wikipedians can make the world whole. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are certainly systemic biases in media and society, but Wikipedia is not the best place to fix them (see Advocacy and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). If we make exceptions for subjects that have traditionally been underrepresented by media, then the result will be lots of lower quality articles which do little more than state existence, become indistinguishable from official "about the author" blurbs, invite WP:OR, or are built on ephemeral trivial WP:RECENTISM (the Santa Claus incident fails the WP:10YT to me: why does it take up 1/2 of her career section?). Not the best way to improve representation of women or minorities, let alone make a better encyclopedia. Reliable sources need to improve their coverage first, which will allow Wikipedia to make better articles with better representation. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - When looking from a similar perspective of WP:NMEDIA there are difficulties finding comprehensive coverage from the competition. However, it seems clear that she meets WP:NJOURNALIST Criteria 1, in that she is widely cited by her peers in competing outlets.  If you change the GNews search above into "Aisha Harris wrote" you will get a wide range of outlets and authors that cite her pieces.  Some examples in addition to the Santa Claus piece already covered in the article and discussed here:  from theGrio,  from Thrillist,  from The Independent,  from Inverse,  from Decider, etc. -2pou (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:BIO per above argument. The sources in the article, including the ones presented by 2pou, are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Stopping deleting women, especially women of color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b063:d6cb:c64:78e7:10a5:d5a6 (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Summary before closure:
 * (1) No opposition to SBKSPP's keep argument (per meeting WP:BIO).
 * (2) No opposition to 2pou's keep argument (per meeting WP:NJOURNALIST).
 * (3) No opposition to Bearian's keep argument (per WP:HEY) except for Animalparty saying without !voting that WP is not the place to fix systemic racism, but the keep argument was per WP:HEY and the WP:BIAS part was just extra anyways).
 * (4) No delete !votes after being relisted 14 days ago (Johnpacklambert had already delete !voted before)
 * (5) One opposition to irregulargalaxies' keep argument (per WP:THREESOURCES) was limited to just nom suggesting that WP:100WORDS was not met.
 * While there is no consensus for (5) specifically, there is no opposition to (1),(2),(3), or (4) which is more than enough for a keep result after 3x the usual lifetime of an AfD discussion. As someone completely unconnected to the subject, I'm closing because I didn't !vote, the discussion seems to have been neglected by admins (no relisting on 13 July or 20 July), and the consensus based on others' arguments was to keep.  Dr. Universe (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.