Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas R. 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. Missvain (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Douglas R. Harper

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This deletion proposal largely follows in the footsteps of this archived Reliable Sources discussion, in which a majority of participants felt that Douglas R. Harper, the self-publisher of Online Etymology Dictionary (A.K.A. etymonline), is not particularly reliable (though probably well-intentioned). I think, therefore, the existence of an article for the author himself holds even less water; certainly, citations are lacking and some of the personal knowledge is strikingly specific and probably original research. (By the way, he is not, as the lead claims, a "lexicographer" any more than an uncredentialled blogger is a "memoirist".) Wolfdog (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The IMSE source strikes me as significant coverage, but for the moment I lean toward merge with Online Etymology Dictionary, which seems about the only thing he's known for. Nardog (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete there are not enough reliable 3rd-party secondary sources with significant coverage about Harper to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I have a keen interest in etymology and I consider the Online Etymology Dictionary to be an excellent resource for English etymology. The IMSE source is certainly "significant coverage". Whoever says that the author is "not particularly reliable" should explain the reasons for this judgement, which I believe to be totally wrong. Harper also published the history books (though local history) listed in the article, Etymonline is not his only contribution to culture. As far as I know, a lexicographer is anyone who has compiled a dictionary, whether printed or online, so he can be credited as a lexicographer. --Gab.pr (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If people are interested in the content and not the creator, and that would indicate the creator is not notable. Also it would indicate we have an article on the creation and not the creator. Just because one creates something that is notable does not always mean that one themself is notable. Wikipedia biographical aricles need to follow indepth secondary reliable source independent coverage of an individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. To be labeled as a lexicographer, you need to at the very least be published (not self-published); I've already headed off this kind of thinking with my above blogger analogy. 2. The "reasons" why I call Harper "not particularly reliable", as I've already indicated, stem from a prior discussion: here it is again. 3. You having a keen interest in etymology isn't relevant here and doesn't lend any credibility to Harper. Wolfdog (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Harper is simply not a notable topic. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:25, 21 December 2020 (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.