Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendall Harmon

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. Originally unsourced, the article benefited from the added attention during the discussion and is now referenced. The subject's notability was challenged for lack of independent sourcing, and this became the dominant thread of the discussion. Although developed at some length, I don't think that consensus was reached on that point. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Harmon

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: Article does not establish notability of subject, is orphaned and cites no sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLPs need clear sourcing for notability and content, this has none. // Timothy :: talk 11:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP without required sourcing. Anyway, 1 book; 1 doctoral thesis; 1 academic article (book chapter); and unspecified newspaper/magazine articles are not enough to establish notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No established notability. Jeppiz (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete as the other results I see are blog and Facebook coverage.
talk) 18:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I am hoping for a little time to investigate the bio. I Just googled and book searched "Kendall Harmon homosexuality" and found The Guardian. The Christian Science Monitor and many others. Will need a short time to see if SIGCOV exists. Lightburst (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian piece I think you found is an article the subject wrote; it does say they were "canon theologian for the diocese of South Carolina". I thought there might be something there, but couldn't find anything. I did find sources with short quotes opposing LGBT+ equality from the subject, but those sources didn't address the subject directly or indepth, just a short quote, along with quotes from others. This isn't enough for a BLP. // Timothy :: talk 19:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 34 mentions in: Caldwell, Ronald J.. A History of the Episcopal Church Schism in South Carolina. United States, Wipf & Stock, 2017. I would encourage people to do the
WP:BEFORE searches and assess this article based on the sources that exist, not the state of the article. CT55555(talk) 19:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That source appears to rely heavily on citing Wikipedia...
A useful summary of his viewpoint comes from Wikipedia: "Harmon has espoused a traditional/conservative position he describes as 'reasserting' the historical Christian position on same-sex erotic activity"

We should be very cautious about using it. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (arguably even speedy keep). The rationale and many of the votes that follow it are appear to be based on the state of the article (since improved) at the time of nomination, which is a flawed understanding of
WP:GNG guides us to keep. CT55555(talk) 19:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
According to the preface in A History of the Episcopal Church Schism in South Carolina, the subject was a contributor/source for the book. A single source in a very niche topic, when the subject contributed to the source does not establish notability, especially for the BLP. In any event, the source does not provide SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 20:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Fair enough. But~~ there are plenty other sources that write about him, plenty content to create a medium length article, so seems inevitably a
WP:PROF pass would be relevant to consider too. Take for example how many times The Guardian use his comments, just to consider one reliable source (Google ""Kendall Harmon" site:www.theguardian.com" to see) CT55555(talk) 13:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Updated comment I accepted this rebuttal with good faith and assumed I'd missed that, but fact checking it today, I see it is incorrect (well, maybe correct to say his blog is a "source", but he is clearly not a contributor.) . What the preface does is present the sources and include Harman's online blog as one of them. I quote "...in general, from the "orthodox" Anglican viewpoint. More specifically on the diocese, Kendall Harmon's blog at Titus One None provided a host of essential material supporting the diocesan positions and decisions and criticising the national church..." CT55555(talk) 13:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian uses his comments because he used to be an opinion columnist for them. He has a profile there and everything (in fact, it's the first thing that shows up when you google ""Kendall Harmon" site:www.theguardian.com"). JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking over this comment overnight and I still cannot decide what conclusion to reach from this. If The Guardian sought his input for their paper, and paid him for it, it still does suggest he is influential. In the context of him not being a journalists, it still seems to suggest
WP:PROF The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. is met. Although I welcome your critique of that. CT55555(talk) 13:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It suggests he was an opinion columnist for them and therefore The Guardian is not an independent assessor of his expertise. Writing an opinion column is certainly not evidence of scholarly recognition, but even scholars who are solicited to write real journalistic articles on their field for a newspaper do not meet NPROF C7 (otherwise we would have articles on every single science reporter, doctor writing a health column, or financial analyst). Researchers are employed to do research in industry/academia for their expertise, and journal editors/writers are employed based on their expertise to write non-research articles summarizing that research. Neither of those positions is sufficient on its own to meet NPROF, so why should being employed to write about one's field in a non-academic capacity (and arguably as a non-academic; merely having a doctorate or even having published some papers/books long ago does not make someone an academic) because of one's expertise imply they have had more academic impact?

NPROF C7 is for academics who are regularly asked, by multiple outlets in conventional media over a sustained period, to explain the importance of a research finding or to offer their specialized analysis of a topic. Outside of writing the opinion columns (and out of the ~17 results for him on The Guardian website, 7 are links to his "Anglicanism at the crossroads" piece, 4 are to his "Cautious hope" article, and 2 are his profile/name in a list of contributors) Harmon, as far as I can tell, is not even being quoted for his academic, theological input. The 4 stories that mention him just relay his opinion as a high-ranking witness to contemporary Episcopalian politics; newspapers do the same -- quoting the reactions of involved leadership -- when reporting on any organizational drama. E.g. we wouldn't say a company's vice president giving his thoughts on a merger is acting as an expert commentator. Being quoted 4 times by the same newspaper isn't enough for C7, and certainly it isn't enough when the context isn't academic. JoelleJay (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So a non-professor is not passing professor notability. Got it.
talk) 22:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I respect the care that you've putting into your points here, as you always seem to do. I did wait and think before reaching this conclusion, and I contemplated switching to neural and weak keep, but considering everyone's contributions here, I've decided to keep my keep !vote. I am less certain which specific guideline I should point to, if it is
WP:GNG
, so in conclusion, this is basically me focussing less on any specific guideline and more on the overall assessment that he is overall a notable leader, who is specifically notable for having a strong views, and is someone that encyclopedia readers would reasonably want information on and therefore this article's net presence to the project is a positive.

I've seen references to the quality of the article - a very important topic - but a topic for the talk page or a tag, if problems remain, but not a reason to delete. This conversation is getting long. I'll read everything that follows, but if you don't see me continuing to rebut the point, assume I'm semi-
WP:COALing
things. If anyone says anything that persuades me, I'll update.

Thanks for the careful and polite disagreements here, CT55555(talk) 22:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, former contributing writers are sometimes asked for quotes on issues on which they are experts and/or involved. Just what are you suggesting is a problem here, JoelleJay?

A profile? All it says is "The Rev Kendall Harmon holds a DPhil from Oxford University and serves as canon theologian for the episcopal diocese of South Carolina". It's likely the first thing that shows up because The Guardian has decent SEO.
talk) 16:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
He's literally listed as a contributor. I don't know what SEO manipulation has to do with Harmon's Guardian profile being at the top of search results for Harmon on the Guardian website...

Anyway, see above: he's only quoted four times, and not as an expert in theology but as an Episcopalian leader offering his primary opinion on discord within the Anglican Church. So even if he was completely independent from The Guardian, this wouldn't be anywhere close to fulfilling C7. JoelleJay (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, I misread your statement on powersearching with "site:..."

But when you write "He has a profile there and everything"... what is surprising about that? Do you take issue with his articles? With his being quoted only four times? What's the beef?

Many writers of opinion pieces are experts in their fields. He is, as you have said, an Episcopalian leader; he has been immersed in these major church issues for decades; he has been quoted a mere four times by The Guardian. OK.
talk) 22:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Having a profile as a Guardian contributor means he is affiliated with The Guardian, and so his being quoted in their articles is not indicative of NPROF C7 expertise (which is the only way being quoted in a newspaper can count towards notability). Being quoted in only four articles is just another metric by which he is deficient in the requirements of C7. JoelleJay (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I rebut the points that the Harmon was a contributor to the book (does not say that), that Harmon is not addressed directly and in-depth, and the conclusion that the schism book amounts to a"single source in a very niche topic" below.
talk) 12:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

untrue. I looked for references online and didn't/don't find it sufficient coverage.
talk) 17:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Quoting myself, with bold emphasis to highlight the point I made: "many of the votes that follow it appear to be based on the state of the article (since improved) at the time of nomination". CT55555(talk) 19:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, appearances can be deceiving. Some of the prose and citations don't add up. How thorough was your review?
talk) 20:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
What exactly are you asking me? CT55555(talk) 20:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking whether you'd compared what things said with what the sources say... will follow up below.
talk) 20:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm honestly not following you. Are you now asking me if I have fact checked the sources? CT55555(talk) 20:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found that the person meets our guidelines for inclusion. Myself and CT55555 have begun to add references to show notability. The previous Delete ivoters have assessed the article's lack of references but not the availability of references per
WP:NEXIST. The nomination is similarly flawed in that it only discusses the state of the article at the time of the nomination; and it speaks to the lack of sources in the article and not those that exist. Lightburst (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Don't make assumptions about what voters have and have not done. Maybe other fingers looked as I did and were not moved to vote to keep by the scope of coverage.
talk) 17:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Independent reliable sources with SIGCOV have not been added to show notability. The statement that delete !votes didn't look at the "availability of references" is clearly shown as false by comments above. // Timothy :: talk 22:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your delete rationale assessed the article as is was, just as the nomination and the other delete rationales. You stated BLPs need clear sourcing for notability and content, this has none. Forgive me but

WP:COAL is something I am trying to follow so I will probably not respond again. Lightburst (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the additional sources and work put into the page after its nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
note to closer and other editors: I am seeing some factual discrepancies in the writing of the article. This is problematic anywhere, but especially in a BLP of an individual who has controversial views. I am correcting them as I see them and explaining in my edit notes. I will comb through the article now to make sure nothing is misrepresented.
talk) 19:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The sourcing found so far seems to lack independence, which is especially unacceptable for a BLP with controversial views. JoelleJay (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that is based on the book that I presented above, please note my updated rejection of that analysis with a quote that I think really clarifies the independence of the book. CT55555(talk) 13:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAs I did cleanup, I did some looking, some linking, etc. I noticed that there were at least 3 instances of article content not being backed up, or backed up well, in the sources. I'm too busy to include diffs, but: one predates the AfD (the word "reasserting," with quotes); another may be a misunderstanding of content (the word ordination rather than election, which is a significant distinction but could be easily confused); and an issue with paraphrasing (poor and weak when only one of those appears in the source). Must go now; will follow up on other gleanings from the review in a couple of hours.
talk) 21:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Weak~~ keep ~~It's borderline~~. Harmon was vocal on this and that well before social media, but he was not profiled that I've seen. The book on the schism of South Carolina is well-written, Wikipedia mention notwithstanding (and what I saw was not a citation in the true sense but an acknowledgement of the text there). It's also well-footnoted. Is an individual who has held important positions, though not positions of traditional leadership, who seemingly has a fair amount of attention from his blog and media comments, notable? In most cases, I'd say that is not enough. But the book states that he was a significant figure in the schism. That's a big thing. This has me lean ~~about 52%~~ keep the article.
talk) 23:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@DiamondRemley39, I thought Timothy established that book was not suitably independent: According to the preface in A History of the Episcopal Church Schism in South Carolina, the subject was a contributor/source for the book. JoelleJay (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy established no such thing. That is not what the book says. Page 1 of the preface acknowledges Harmon's blog as a source of diocesan positions and decisions, but not Harmon as a source of himself. Harmon's involvement in the events is verified with those footnoted reliable, independent, secondary sources are footnoted. The facts of the article are not disputed.

Would a book of the history of any movement or community be thorough if it ignored the works of the key players? Nope. It would be a literature review.

talk) 12:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I assumed from CT55555's "fair enough" that he agreed with that characterization. He's struck it now, so sure, the book is more independent than it appeared. That doesn't make it acceptable as the sole SIGCOV source for a BLP. The other citations in the article are nowhere close to providing independent, secondary significant coverage; in fact, they are all disqualified from counting towards GNG due to being primary, non-independent quotes from Harmon (CNN, The Guardian, LA Times, CSM), primary, first-person accounts of someone's reaction to Harmon (Edward Fudge book), items Harmon has written himself (his bio at ADOSC, his papers/books), or a couple mentions with non-independent repetition of things he has said (Sachs book). What someone says about themselves or what they believe is not an independent analysis of them even if it's repeated in an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Notability guideline reads: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. We have not relied on these.

What of the many footnotes in A History of the Episcopal Church Schism in South Carolina? A number of them indicate WP:NEXIST with sources that meet the standards. Your mischaracterization of the Sachs book (miles from "a couple mentions with non-independent repetition of things he has said") suggests that you haven't reviewed it; Harmon not only appears throughout, but his actions are analyzed by the author.

You want to exclude every source or virtually every currently cited source--I haven't compared your list with the sourcing in the article now-- because Harmon wrote or was present or got quoted. But it's a small community and its leaders will write and be present and get quoted as their union crumbles. And the state of the article doesn't really matter because ^^^^ sources exist.

Do you doubt any of the content?
talk) 22:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Independent of the subject obviously excludes repetition of things the subject has said. I don't know what you mean by the footnotes in Schism -- are you saying they contain citations to other independent authors' commentary on Harmon? Which ones do that?

Sachs has 6 mentions of Harmon:
p59 is a quote from a passage Harmon wrote (not independent of Harmon): "Another theological opponent named Kendall Harmon, who delivered a paper entitled "The Case against Conditionalism: A Reesponse to Edward William Fudge" at the Fourth Edinburgh Conference on Christian Dogmatics, responded to a letter from Fudge: As you correctly gathered from the title of my paper, I did not agree with your book."

p60 is a quote from someone else (quotes are primary): "Kendall Harmon's paper surprised me. I thought that he had raised some points wich merited clarification, but to me it seemed no answer to you. But he seemed to think that he had effectively shown you seriously wrong."

p378, 411, 418, and 429 are all his name appearing in the index/bibliography.

To write an NPOV article we have to have sufficient sourcing that comes from other people talking about the subject who have no affiliation with the subject. Merely quoting/stating what the subject said, whether about himself or about other things, means the article would be composed from the subject's (or his affiliates') POV with no written secondary independent analysis of what he said; for that reason, such content does not contribute to notability. And per FRINGE, for controversial topics we cannot just repeat the contentious opinions of the subject without contextualizing it with the mainstream POV (Quotes that are controversial...need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. I don't know to what extent Caldwell is a dispassionate third party presenting a neutral secondary analysis of Harmon, but even if he's the perfect source in that regard it's still just one source, and for BLPs in FRINGE areas multiple such sources are required. JoelleJay (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "Caldwell" when I wrote "Sachs"; mea culpa. I'm not going to list every footnote; the book is hyperlinked. Caldwell does not represent a single source. Nor will I respond to the suggestion that Caldwell has to be something beyond well-sourced, well-written, informative, and the merits of a secondary source with all the modifiers whose presence here we are debating.

Let's go back to the topic. This AfD is about **notability**. FRINGE (and a new denomination that interprets scripture to defend classic Christian tradition is not so fringy) is another matter and such discussion is appropriate for the talk page rather than AfD. That the content needs be contextualized does not signify. Such work can be done by incorporating more content or excising what is there now.

Too ill to reply longer. Good night, and good luck.
talk) 00:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
How is Caldwell not a single source? And AfDs are not just about notability; not complying with WP:FRINGEBLP is a very real reason for deletion. His bio currently serves to relay his controversial opinions on homosexuality with zero contextualization or even secondary commentary of any kind, which is not acceptable. JoelleJay (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After all I and others have written, how can you ask me how Caldwell is a single source? I never said Caldwell was a single source. I said he did not represent one.

OK, I will try again. Caldwell indicates sources per NEXIST. Footnotes. I've said "footnotes" I don't know how many times here. I'll add synonyms: Bibliography. Citations. Sources. Other stuff. ::shrugs::

Of course AfDs are not just about notability. I wrote that this AfD is not about notability. The nom statement reads: "Article does not establish notability of subject, is orphaned and cites no sources."

You're the only one who thinks there is an issue other than notability here, I believe. You are the only one who finds a FRINGE issue present in the article. OK. The onus is on you. Others cannot edit things you find problematic to your satisfaction. When you repeat the same points without taking action, your argument sounds a little more like WP:JDLI. So go for it, please. Contextualize to your heart's content. The content you need is there.
talk) 23:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
For these footnotes etc. to count towards NEXIST you need to identify them. You can't just say a book that covers the subject and contains footnotes "represents" multiple sources, especially for a BLP, and especially for a controversial BLP. How do we know these footnotes aren't to primary accounts, or Harmon's blog, or any other non-RS?

All articles must meet our policies on BLP and FRINGE. It doesn't matter whatsoever that those weren't identified in the nomination. The BURDEN is on those who wish to include content to ensure it is reliably sourced and presented in a NPOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CT55555 and I know the character of the sources because we have used our reading comprehension skills to review them. No snark meant... I am laughing now because I have said it so many ways that I don't know how else to spell it out. You've suggested I transcribe the bibliographic citations on many pages. No, NEXIST does not require (or suggest, I think) that standard. These pages are as accessible to you as they are to me... but maybe not. I realize that some people struggle with technology, so if you need help navigating Google Books, let me know and I will leave some info on your talk page.

Already said: sure, pile FRINGE on... You write, "The BURDEN is on those who wish to include content to ensure it is reliably sourced and presented in a NPOV." So far, you've written of FRINGE so generally. Tell us: What is not reliably sourced? What is not presented neutrally? Is the article pro- or anti- Harmon, schism, LGBTQIA, women in ministry, etc.? Give specific examples of prose that may not have happened as they are detailed or of the article's current sources that cite disputable information and are problematic. Give specific examples of slant in the sources and in the article.

I really don't know what else to say here. You won't review Caldwell or edit the article; I can't tell what would make the undisputed facts presented by mainstream and academic sources more palatable to you and I won't transcribe Caldwell (and even if I did, I'm guessing the goalposts would move again). We should probably agree to an impasse. I will continue the discourse if you do, though, not for your sake or mine, but for those of other editors and admins.
talk) 19:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The issue with the current presentation of the article is that it describes Harmon's beliefs using his own quotes/writings; they are conveyed through reliable sources, but they are not contextualized with independent analysis or commentary on how those views are/were received or what the mainstream stance is. For example, in which he discussed homosexuality and its incompatibility with biblical scripture is a statement made in wikivoice without clarification that this is an opinion that is quite disputed within Anglicanism. Biographies should not be platforms for their subjects' contentious views -- Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. That means Harmon campaigned against the election of Barbara Harris as bishop of the Diocese of Massachusetts in 1988 by characterizing Harris, a black woman, as angry, uneducated, inexperienced, and extremist should not be repeated here without those claims being challenged. Caldwell's style of describing these events is commendably dispassionate, but from what I've read so far it is very much told through the narrative of the conservative Anglicans with little exposition on the perspectives of their opponents. This leaves us without reliably-sourced criticism of Harmon's comments, and that is a problem when they are so contentious. JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Direct quote removed with a couple of clicks because I am neither theologian nor apologist nor Anglican.

I changed "in which he discussed homosexuality and its incompatibility with biblical scripture" so it goes with what was, in your opinion, the "mainstream stance" on homosexuality in the setting in which it was written. Two sentences now modified to: "Harmon has frequently written and commented on homosexuality, which he has deemed 'unnatural,' with conservative Christian views" and "His 2005 article 'Anglicanism at the Crossroads', in which he detailed a conservative Christian view of homosexuality's incompatibility with biblical scripture, appeared in The Guardian."

Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. How is the content misleading or controversial when it is about actions of Harmon's and says 'characterizing'? Harris is the object. Harmon's criticism is well-reported upon; no one denies he said it; it is sourced and linked. I can over-cite the content, I suppose, from some of the 14 citations linked below or from elsewhere... If you mean misleading about Harris, well, I've changed the verb to "opined" for you. Does the article say that Harris is angry, uneducated, inexperienced, and extremist? Not at all. No, the article does not deprecate Harris (or Harmon) in communicating what Harmon said about Harris. The mainstream opinion--which would more diplomatically and accurately be called an opposing opinion (to Harmon's) --can be found in Harris' wikilinked biography. Much more coverage of Harris would be inappropriate here. Please do shop her article or do the research to find coverage that suggests, counter to Harmon's claims, that she was... happy?, educated, experienced, and conservative or moderate, and incorporate that, or find a source and copy the content here and I will incorporate it if it can be done without leaving the subject of Harmon.

"But from what I've read so far it is very much told through the narrative of the conservative Anglicans with little exposition on the perspectives of their opponents". In that case, you haven't read much of the book. The source has both viewpoints; remember that, without the liberals, the conservatives would not have been active on this topic. As this biography is on a conservative Anglican rather than on the schism or either Church, the information will regale the actions of the conservatives than the liberals as those are most relevant. Do mine the source if you want more of the liberal perspective in a BLP of a conservative.

"This leaves us without reliably-sourced criticism of Harmon's comments"... in the article now. But criticism of Harmon's comments is not required (though I'm sure some exists in some of the mainstream media articles and likely elsewhere). We have facts, neutrality from Caldwell, and more. We can write with neutrality here.

Feel free to work on the article by stripping offending passages yourself, or dressing them up, though that may be counter to your vote. Or keep saying specifically what you want and why; I or someone else may do so as we have time.
talk) 16:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, those edits do make it more neutral. Mostly I am concerned with points 4 and 5 (and how they intersect with 3): we still don't have secondary analysis of what Harmon has said or reports on anyone's direct reactions to him. In our article on Andrew Schlafly, we relay his views but also how they have been received and others' responses to them. That's what I would like to see evidence of for Harmon -- can you point out where Caldwell has mentioned "liberal" viewpoints on Harmon's statements? JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A. Even if comparing the tone or scope of an article were a good argument to make in a deletion discussion, you'd want to select someone with a background and career more similar to Harmon's than Schalfly's.

B. There is more Caldwell book and other source info to incorporate before I would have time to prioritize the addressing
WP:RUBBISH
points. Again I recommend you review the sources yourself, including Caldwell, who does analyze Harmon. If the argument is that such must be in the article now, that is a surmountable problem.

3. "Without reliably-sourced criticism of Harmon's comments, and that is a problem when they are so contentious". Which of his comments is contentious?

You've got access. Go for it!
talk) 18:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Just a few sources from newspapers.com: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus on the notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading through the discussion I am now convinced this person is notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have their own article. Dream Focus 18:48, 18 March 2023 (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.