Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Morgan-Mar (2nd nomination)

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. Several of the "keep" comments self-identify as weak and are based on an apparent feeling that this person should be notable due to their involvement in a webcomic. That may be true but we can't make editorial decisions based on our feelings. Given the weak or questionable sourcing the "delete" camp presents a more compelling argument. Willing to userfy for further development if requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Morgan-Mar[edit]

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

Nothing but primary sources. Found no secondary sourcing whatsoever, just passing mentions. Last AFD was part of a bundle in 2006 that closed as "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some secondary sources to go with the one secondary source (New Scientist) already there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, all just passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mentions which appear to be sufficient for Wikipedia inclusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Appear by whose standards? "Non-trivial third party" is pretty much set in stone, you know. And I don't see how these are non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just passing mentions by whose standards? Newcastle Herald may be a passing mention, but Wired.com (a short article about Morgan-Mar's interaction with Jane Goodall), MakeUseOf (a section on Morgan-Mar's Piet), and e23 (about Morgan-Mar's GURPS & Pyramid work) are not, you know. And I don't see how these are trivial. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The wired link is beyond trivial, calling it an article is a vast exaggeration it's a a one paragraph blurb that reads like a personal congratulatory post a message board. Totally falls short of significant coverage. Ridernyc (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the person whom the article is about, I just want to say that I have no particular stake in whether the article is kept or deleted, and will not campaign for either option. I trust the users of Wikipedia to make a fair decision. -dmmaus (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Out of the 9 sources in the article, 1 (#1) I cannot check as it is not online. 2, (#2, #7) are about Morgan-Mar (although #2 is short.) 1 (#3) mentions him somewhat in passing. The rest are primary sources.

There may be a few more sources on this old revision: Irregular Webcomic! Googling also turned up a few other sources BrickComicNetwork interview, Erdös number (whatever that's worth), something about an art gallery. a blog covering Darths & Droids, another blog covering Darths & Droids. I imagine there would be further sourcing relating to his other projects. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The art gallery thing is a directory listing that only mentions him in passing, and the two blogs are unreliable self-published sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The blogs are reliable non-independent sources. Non-independent sources can still be reliable, as in this case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What makes them reliable? They appear to be just some random joe's blogs. Are the people who wrote them notable, or experts in their field? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:ABOUTSELF. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Doesn't apply. If David wrote those blogs himself, then they'd be fine. But he didn't. WP:ABOUTSELF is about sources, well, about yourself. And David didn't write either blog. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You and I are referring to different citations then. Try again, with more specification. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I see my confusion. I thought the blogs above were repeats of the ones in the article, including the author's own. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. as discussed above, most of the sources are not indepth or do not meet reliable sources. also trove search doesn't show much either. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO doesn't require most of the sources to do anything, just that sufficient sources meet the standard. None of the sources on the page are unreliable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So by that logic, I could have a Wikipedia article because of the three or four articles in my local paper that just mentioned me in passing. WP:GNG, which supercedes WP:BLP, says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I'm not seeing any significant coverage. A whole bunch of name-drops and primary sources do not notability make. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's not the same logic. Wired.com (a short article about Morgan-Mar's interaction with Jane Goodall), MakeUseOf (a section on Morgan-Mar's Piet), and e23 (about Morgan-Mar's GURPS & Pyramid work) are not three or four articles in your local paper mentioning you in passing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of substantial coverage in independent sources. Ridernyc (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The sources are not great, but Irregular Webcomic is a very well-known webcomic and his work on esoteric programming languages is about as notable. I think both things combined justify an article. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required to satisfy WP:GNG and fails to provide evidence the subject might be notable under WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered are all WP:QUESTIONABLE blogs, trivial mentions, copies of WP articles and WP:PRIMARY sources. Googling turns up nothing useful. This is an easy call. Msnicki (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources might not be the greatest, but he does have an impact with the webcomic, programming language work and his work for Steve Jackson Games. I found some papers written by him on the subject of optics. Jarkeld (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" I found some papers written by him on the subject of optics" does not equate to being notable. anyone can write papers. where is the 3rd party coverage of his "impact". LibStar (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment There's no clear consensus yet as to whether the depth/breadth of coverage is sufficient. -- Trevj (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Novil Ariandis. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 17:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Easy call. Sources are either self-published or passing, trivial mentions, even single sentences. Nothing here approaches WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His work on webcomics passes notability. This is a holding article for an artist and his work. The combination of these two subjects is notable. We also have 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could find nothing in WP:ANYBIO or elsewhere in the guidelines to support a claim that his webcomics establish his notability in lieu of sources. And could you point us at the 3rd party sources you rely on? Msnicki (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2013 (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.