Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Spofford Morgan


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

John Spofford Morgan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography of a person whose only discernible notability claim is that he married his partner in 2011 after same-sex marriage was legalized. Virtually all of the references here are WP:ROUTINE obituaries of him, his husband and his mother upon their deaths, or glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him — and the only reference that's actually about him is a blurb about the marriage itself in a "reasons to love New York" listicle. The simple fact of getting married is not, in and of itself, a reason why a person gets an encyclopedia article, and notability is not inherited, so having a notable mother doesn't automatically make him special either — but the sourcing here isn't adequate to make his marriage more notable than millions of other marriages. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a redirect to his mother Barbara Spofford Morgan. If you are fine with me proceeding right now, I can do that. Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete and do not redirect. This person is quite simply non-notable, per nom. Getting married does not confer notability, and nor does being gay – both are extremely common. There's no reason to keep a redirect, and there's surely no justification for copying the content of the article into that of his mother. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge and redirect 51000 google hits and  and  and  and  and  and more than 500 google books references  and  and  and  and  and says that the name is notable. I should add the name was already in wikipedia on the grandfather page. A short paragraphs on the mother with a redirect is the minimum.Elisa.rolle (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete They are not notable. scope_creep (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Elisa.rolle (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Wiki Loves Pride. Elisa.rolle (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the WikiProject Gender Studies. Elisa.rolle (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The "more than 500 Google books" turn out to be 11 "books", none of them with any text that would indicate notability for John Spofford Morgan (he gets thanked for helping in research, or is listed as a member of something, that's it). The regular Google hits drop down to 28 hits on closer scrutiny as well. The attempted canvassing is also noted. Fram (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Open google search About 190,000 results (0.41 seconds) Closed google search About 9,760 results (0.36 seconds)  Closed google books search About 647 results (0.34 seconds)  For notability the subject could not be the main topic, it's enought the sources are reliable. Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * With Google searches you need to check that the numbers are not massively inflated, as is often the case. Go to page 10 and see if you still get results. No? Then the original numbers are way too high. Your statement "For notability the subject could not be the main topic, it's enought the sources are reliable." is not true. For notability, the sources need to pay significant attention to the subject, not just mention it in passing. Please indicate one or two of your Goohgle Books results which pay significant attention to the subject. Fram (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * New York Magazine reliable source, on the subject, independent. (reblogged many times)
 * Norfolk Now reliable source, on the subject, independent.
 * Library of Congress reliable source, on the subject even if not main topic, independent.
 * District of Columbia Library Association reliable source, on the subject even if not main topic, independent.
 * Norfolk Historical Society reliable source, on the subject even if not main topic, independent.
 * Party Animals Travel Across the Nation: LC Traveling Exhibition Features Political Symbols, reliable source, on the subject even if not main topic, independent.
 * Library of Congress Information Bulletin, reliable source, on the subject even if not main topic, independent.
 * By-laws, Rules and List of Officers and Members, reliable source, not main topic, independent.
 * Boston Symphony Orchestra, Volume 59, reliable source, not main topic, independent.Elisa.rolle (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first two are well-known by now and not from Google Books anyway. The others: this is not about John Spofford Morgan, it is about his ancestor? This, this and this is the exact same article. This is a newsletter from an historical society for a town of less than 2,000 inhabitants. These kind of hobbyists newsletters don't give notability. This is an entry in a list of members of a club, as is this. Like I said above already... Being mentioned a few times, mostly in relation to an ancestor, does not give someone notability. Which leaves you with the Nymag and nornow articles, where the Norfolk now is an obituary in a very local newswebsite, and the other is a typical lifestyle one-event news item. There simply isn't the notability we require for biographies. Fram (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You asked if there were RS on the subject. New York Magazine is a Reliable Source. The Newsletter of a Community is a Reliable Source. The others, even if not on the subject, are Reliable Sources about him (the one about the grandfather already using his name on the Wikipedia page of the Grandfather). And I should add, you are forgetting that my initial proposal is to merge the info on the section of the mother. I think all the reliable sources more than justify a redirect and merge on the mother. Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I asked "Please indicate one or two of your Google Books results which pay significant attention to the subject." From my search and your reply, it has become clear that none of them pay significant attention to the subject (they either are about an ancestor, or just mention him in a list). So your posts about hundreds of Google Books results are inflated and misleading, as there aren't hundreds but 11, and those 11 don't give him any notability. And considering that the sources about the mother don't pay attention to him, and that the few sources about him don't pay attention to his mother, merging the two is just an attempt to keep this information in enwiki no matter what. Fram (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion as I'm to mine. New York magazine (which was reblogged more times), the official Newsletter of the Norfolk town, the official website of the Library of Congress AND their bulletin (more than once) are all Reliable Source who deals with the subject in dept. Other sources (Harvard Club and Boston Symphony Society) refers to him to in a list. Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Being reblogged is not important, being referred to in a list is not important, being mentioned (once, republished the same text in multiple places) by the LoC in an article about an ancestor where the subject helped with the research is not an indicator of notability either (for the ancestor, yes, not for the subject). All yo have is the NYMag article and the Norfolk obituary. You think this is sufficient, others here clearly don't agree. Fram (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2385 characters on the New York Magazine on the subject:, 2105 character on the Norfolk newsletter: , 1118 characters on the Library of Congress webiste just on the subject (I did not count that on the ancestor): 1684 characters on the Norfolk Historical Society on the subjec t: . This amount to 7292 characters directly on the subject from Reliable Sources. The listing just help support the notability. I summarized them in a 1329 paragraph (using  and  and  and  and  and  and ) as a merge and redirect on the mother. I think that is fair enough. Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The LoC has nothing directly on the subject. Read that article and tell me what JS Morgan is known for. Never mind why that would be relevant information for the article on his mother. The Norfolk newsletter you now reference is indeed not an obituary, but is also not the official Newsletter of the Norfolk town, but the newsletter of the Norfolk Historical Society. The obituary is the article from the Norfolk Town news site. Fram (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out that one of the main sources it's actually not a duplicate but a new one, "Norfolk Historical Society". Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You already included both separately in your above list of sources (second and fifth one), and I already discussed them above, so there is litle "new" about it, and it still is a hobbyists newsletter from a small local club (the historical society of a town with less than 2,000 inhabitants). Fram (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * you said potato, I said patata. "Norfolk Historical Society" is not "Norfolk Town". Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of notability. Rivertorch FIREWATER  19:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 5 February 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.