Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracy Harpster


 * 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. The "delete" !votes, especially the one by, have the stronger arguments. Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Tracy Harpster

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that this person passes WP:GNG. Other than the Propublica piece, there is no in-depth coverage.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Other than the Propublica piece (and a reprint in the Ohio Capitol Journal), the only other sourcing is someone with her his name that had their badge and gun stolen. Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. I believe you may have meant "his" name vs "her"? I don't mean to assume this persons pronouns, but the sources do refer to he/him/his. DrGvago (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Well the police officer that had items stolen was female, so I suppose even less notability for this person. Argh, that was also a male. I'm not sure what I'm saying sometimes. Oaktree b (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Corrected in the comments above also. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:GNG states multiple sources are needed, and ProPublica is only one. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep With the upmost thanks and respect to all concerned, I submit the following:
 * WP:SNG's guidelines are much more applicable to subject than WP:GNG for which the article was submitted for. Specifically, author and academics which are "explicitly listed as an alternative" to WP:GNG and state "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." and " Conversely, failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline." and "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions..." met by #7 stating "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" and "Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." which is clearly demonstrated by multiple mainstream sources such as ProPublica twice recently and Orlando Sentinel in 2009 demonstrating longer standing history of such, and subject's research cites in other research and books, industry recognition such as the FBI LEO Bulletin, and academic recognition by the subject's Alma Mater. In addition under WP:AUTH "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" again clearly demonstrated by sources in the article.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist (although since no one has commented after the first 2 relists, I might be hoping in vain for additional participation.) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The subject matter of criminal justice research, theories and techniques are not generally the topic of mainstream media attention, and judgement for inclusion should consider this as accepted by the academic criteria. There have also been a number of potential sources added to the talk page prior to initial PROD and subsequent AfD which should help editors following the intent to improve before delete opportunity to do so as per "Step One: Verify if the article in question can be improved rather than be deleted" from the "A five-step approach to deletion" guidelines. Considering additional edits and sources have been added since both PROD and AfD for WP:GNG vs other, clearly specified criteria mentioned here, by only one editor (myself) it seems these guidelines do not seem to me they have been carefully reviewed and applied prior to nomination. I agree the article does need additional improvement and welcome all editors to further collaborate and contribute. Thank you. DrGvago (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Passes WP:AUTHOR C2 for creating a new theory. CT55555 (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nobody has raised this issue, so I will. This is a WP:BLP with virtually no sourced information directly detailing the subject, just info about his theory. There are a misleading number of citations here, some duplicates, some bare mentions, many connected in some way, but as others have stated, ONLY ProPublica meets IRS and directly details the theory, and THEY call his theory junk science, so as of this datestamp, this BLP is not only mostly unsourced, but borders on promotional and clearly misleading. I'm fine with SNGs but a BLP requires a higher standard of sourcing than a book or theory, and this article doesn't seem to possess that now, and my reasonable BEFORE doesn't seem to help. BusterD (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In this process, User:DrGvago might have, as a courtesy, revealed they are the page creator. BusterD (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies. There is no intent to hide that here. I would thought that would be obvious on the history of the article. DrGvago (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2023 (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.