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.
Subject fails
WP:GNG. Any news coverage of him is in the context of his famous spouse, and notability is
WP:NOTINHERETED. I tried to revert this back into a redirect, which I think is appropriate, only to be reverted back, so here we are. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
00:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect. I don't see enough there for him to be considered notable enough for an article: he doesn't meet
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and we don't have a
Wikipedia:Notability (lawyers) guideline. Some of what was added could be in the page about his wife if isn't already there (went to school, obtained law degree, practices with firm), but the page in and of itself should return to being a redirect. –
Athaenara ✉ 01:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect as lacking independent notability. It's possible if Harris gets the nomination and certainly if she gets elected that he'll start to pass GNG but for now a redirect is appropriate. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
01:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, without prejudice against the creation of a redirect afterward (but delete first so that there's no history to revert-war over). People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because of who they happen to be married to, this doesn't even try to make a case that he's notable for his law career, and one article in one source is not a magic
WP:GNG pass that automatically exempts a person from actually having to have a real notability claim. If Kamala Harris wins the presidential election next year, then obviously he'll qualify for an article at that time as the new First Spouse — but until that time, having a chance to maybe become the First Spouse next year is not a notability claim in and of itself.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)reply
What needs to be shown is that there's positive value in keeping the edit history, not that there's merely a lack of harm.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)reply
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.