Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 03:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Maya Harris

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; the subject of this BLP is related to a notable individual, California AG Kamala Harris, however notability is not inherited. Looking throught he sources, the subject has been mentioned multiple times in print and news publications, however non would be consired significant coverage as defined by WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject is notable and passes WP:BIO without any help from her sister. She was the youngest dean of a law school in the United States and as director of ACLU's largest affiliate, she was a highly visible public figure in California. Her advocacy for police reform and authorship of papers on community policing as well as her current work with the Ford Foundation cement her notability. While sources have been added to the article that demonstrate significant coverage, many more can be found. Gobōnobō  + c 19:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * However, the subject herself has not received significant coverage; the organizations she has worked for/with maybe notable in and of themselves but that does not mean that subject herself is notable, see WP:NOTINHERITED. It could be argued that she is notable due to WP:AUTHOR, but from what I can find, she doesn't appear to be "widely cited". She is briefly mentioned by many widely cited scholarly works, but her own works are not widely cited.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assessment here, RightCowLeftCoast. If you haven't revisited the article since your original !vote, sources have been added that now establish notability. I don't think an argument for WP:AUTHOR can be reasonably made, but the subject easily meets WP:BASIC. Coverage in the Stanford Lawyer is in-depth as is the coverage in these links: . WP:NOTINHERITED is not a factor here because Maya is independently notable. Harris was one of the youngest law school deans in US history and has been a spokesperson and public policy advocate in her positions at ACLU and the Ford Foundation. Her comments on public policy issues are regularly picked up by national newspapers, demonstrating a breadth of coverage. Gobōnobō  + c 21:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * it looks like we will have to agree to disagree. In the first three links she is part of the articles, but not the primary subject; so I can understand the argument, but do not agree with the assessment. On this point I will have to agree to disagree. That being said, as a Dean the subject does not warrant notability per WP:ACADEMIC.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. She clearly doesn't pass WP:PROF (neither having two publications nor being law dean is enough) so I think we have to look for WP:GNG instead. I found a lot of news stories quoting her briefly or otherwise mentioning her trivially, but I also found one with a couple paragraphs of nontrivial detail about her (in the context of her promotion to associate director of ACLU) in the Oakland Tribune, and three going into nontrivial detail about her writings in the New Pittsburgh Courier, the Cincinatti Enquirer, and Boston Globe. I also found one article mentioning her only briefly, but as the winner of a local award: Alameda Sun. So the case is weak, but above threshold for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do those few paragraphs warrant significant coverage of the subject There are several quotes and brief mentions, but none that are in-depth by any stretch of the term. The closest to significant coverage is the Stanford Lawyer, and in that she shares space with her husband/spouse as the article's subject. And as that is the only one where she gets close to significant coverage, are we to say that any time a major alma mater (say any major accredited university (from Oxford on down to California State University, Stanislaus)) of a subject does a biography on the subject does that make the subject automatically notable?
 * I've been involved in AfDs that received a keep due to the subject having an obit in the New York Times, as well as there has been AfDs even with the New York Times obit.
 * So WP:GNG requires significant coverage. Where is it?
 * Has a major publication does a lengthy biography where the subject is the primary subject of the article? So far, I have not seen one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We have significant coverage of her works, and some level of coverage of her personal life. That should be enough. Ignoring the coverage of her works and demanding even more coverage of her personal life is the wrong direction, because that leads to an encyclopedia where we only cover celebrities and not people who are actually known for what they have done. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2013 (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.