Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry S. 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. After two relists there hasn't been a single concrete argument in favour of actual deletion, so putting this to bed. Also, several commenters are right in stating that AfD is not cleanup. KaisaL (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Kerry S. Harris

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has so many tags on it that they’re longer than the article itself. I’m not sure what to do with it so bringing to AfD for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep – I added some refs further supporting notability. Tags exist to call out WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues; however many of them there are, they aren't relevant to AfD. The article is salvageable with the sources that exist. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment well it’s been tagged for five and a half years for unverifiable information, and since last year for possibly lacking notability. These are absolutely relevant to AfD. You’ve added some refs but they are not inline citations so it’s not clear which specific parts of the current article they might support. The content of this article that is supported by inline citations amounts to less then two sentences. Mccapra (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You should review Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically, WP:SURMOUNTABLE. The existence of sources is all that's required to establish notability, per WP:NEXIST. The policy says that the sources need not even be listed at the bottom of the article, as I have done, only that we present them in discussion. The fact that you and I know significant coverage meeting WP:GNG is all that's needed. There are many thousands upon thousands of articles in poor shape with several maintenance tags, which nonetheless are are on notable topics. They are expected to sit there waiting until someone gets to them, and there is no deadline. Editing policy, alongside the notability policy, reiterates that we build Wikipedia by starting with crap, and keeping it. The genius of Wikipedia has always been that we do keep the crap long enough for someone to build upon. If we deleted everything that wasn't good, incremental progress would be impossible.It would be particularly harmful to violate the notability and editing policy by deleting this bio of an African-American inventor and entrepreneur, given that the well known Systemic bias of Wikipedia means there are disproportionately few such bios. Deleting a perfectly notable one out of impatience with cleanup would be egregious. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources that support this article, that's great. Looking at the article as it stands, I've no idea which particular assertions within it are properly sourced, and which aren't.  You've taken the trouble to identify new sources, and I don't understand why you wouldn't want to make them inline citations.  Of the sources I can see, inline citation 3 doesn't mention Kerry Harris or his invention at all. When I look him up in Black Enterprise Magazine I see that he was nominated for Innovator of the Year, not that he won it as this article claims.  The ref you've added from vol 274 of Popular Science is just a passing mention. Overall what I see is - there is a guy who hold a few patents for an invention in helmets.  I don't believe that is sufficient to make him notable.  There are a few references here and there to the fact that he hold these patents.  He has apparently not won any ward or distinction that would make him notable.  There is a bio section in the article which is completely unsourced and doesn't support a claim for notability either.  Overall this is pretty thin stuff.  It's been around for eight years so I don't think anyone's being hasty.  Mccapra (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you read the policies I cited. Please do so. They explain why your concerns about a lack of inline citations, and uncited statements in the article, and lack of awards that impress you, have no relevance to this AfD discussion. You're clinging to this incorrect belief that AfD is cleanup. The evidence shows the subject is notable, meeting WP:GNG. End of AfD discussion. A discussion about defects in the article belongs elsewhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I'm on the fence on this. Usually I give the benefit of the doubt for cases where systemic bias might be an issue, as Dennis pointed out. We have two articles about the subject in Black Enterprise, which is good. I see some other things about the invention which is squishy, and one Who's Who which we often ignore in AfDs. If I saw maybe one more solid bio in another journal I'd feel better about a keep !vote. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh: it's a borderline case, I might come back later and make up my mind. However, I don't think introducing opposite biases is a feasible nor fair way of combating existing biases, although I know Longino and Hill would disagree.    SITH   (talk)   19:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Please develop the article further and then I will circle back for a vote. Also reference format appears improper Lubbad85 (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * AfD is not cleanup. It's disruptive to come to AfD and set conditions on your voting. If we reward your behavior, editors will come to AfD and post lists of demands for edits they want to see before delivering their !votes. If an topic is notable, it remains notable regardless of the current state of the article. If someone blanked all of Winston Churchill, the topic remains notable even when the article is vandalized. We fix the problem, rather than argue for deletion. I hope AfD closers will work to discourage this kind of making demands as a conditions for votesYou could reply "Oh, yeah? Well in that case, my vote is DELETE! Take that!" That would be even more disruptive. Classic AfD blackmail. Please don't. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – As mentioned above, based the on current situation of Mr. Harris and his work, this is a border-line case but believe it does pass our requirements for inclusion. Given his involvement and development with regards to installation of monitoring equipment in safety helmets and the ongoing mounting concern of concussions in both pleasure and professional sports here in the United States, I see Mr. Harris gaining more and more attention.  In addition, I have added some inline cites from WP:RS sources in the main article, which should eliminates some of the concerns of the nominator.  Regards ShoesssS Talk 14:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Only 1 of those tags could lead to a possible deletion, and I don't think it can be applied, AfD is not cleanup. SSSB (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2019 (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.