Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Caldwell 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Roland Caldwell Harris

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly referenced biography of a municipal bureaucrat. While he might qualify to have a Wikipedia article if he could be properly sourced over WP:GNG for this, the only properly footnoted references here are to a Blogspot blog, not a reliable source. And while there's one additional reference contextlessly listed under a separate "sources" header after the references header, it names the newspaper and the date but fails to provide the title of the content being referenced, so I had to run a ProQuest search to determine that it's just his WP:ROUTINE obituary, which means that it doesn't singlehandedly vault him over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-blogspot source on offer. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better than this, but the fact of having a piece of municipal infrastructure named after him is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 05:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 05:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I feel like this subject might have warranted a page in the 1930s or 40s if Wikipedia was around. As it stands, there just aren't enough reliable sources out there. There are a few, but they seem less concerned with the man and more focused on the water treatment plant that bears his name. I couldn't find a source that referenced anything other than his time as Commissioner of Public Works in Toronto, and even that information was limited. Gargleafg (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There is this: http://www.beachesliving.ca/pages/index.php?act=landmark&id=36 and https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/meet-the-man-who-shaped-20th-century-toronto/article4186743/ and http://spacing.ca/toronto/tag/roland-caldwell-harris/  All articles about RC Harris mention the water plant, but that does mean that his notability is solely due to the water plant. Ross-c (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Beaches Living is not a reliable source at all — it's a neighbourhood web business directory, not a real media outlet, so that link counts for all of exactly nothing. The Spacing link does not list any articles that are substantively about R. C. Harris at all — it just lists a few short blurbs about the plant, not anything about Harris as a person that would help him get over WP:GNG. So the only one of those links that counts for anything at all is The Globe and Mail — but that's one piece of coverage toward an inclusion criterion that requires a hell of a lot more than just one piece of coverage. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. References do not support stand-alone article. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Keep' Harris was a person of no little significance in Toronto's past --- whatever the shortcomings of the article, it is better than nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.239.172 (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, a badly sourced article is not better than nothing — our basic credibility as a source of information depends on sourcing our articles properly so that people can't just make up random unsourced bullshit about him. Deletion of this would not prevent somebody from trying again in the future if they can actually locate better sourcing than we've been able to find so far, so we don't keep badly sourced articles just because they're "better than nothing". If somebody can do better than this in the future, they're absolutely more than welcome to do that — but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to require us to keep it in this state of sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2018 (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.