Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon and Tracy Morter


 * 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 and redirect to Killing_in_the_Name. Consensus is leaning toward delete/redirecting, and the article's subject has requested deletion. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 05:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Jon and Tracy Morter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:ONEEVENT - the couple is only known for starting their online campaign to push "Killing in the Name" to the Christmas No. 1 in the UK. Per WP:ONEEVENT, Wiki should only be covering the actual event (which is already detailed in the song article), and not the individuals involved. Madchester (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:1E - this is one of the worst violations of that guideline I've ever seen. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. All person-based entries must by definition begin with one event. Where these two campaigners are concerned, the 2009 campaign is actually the second event of that kind. Finally, their effect on British social, cultural and political history may turn out to be much greater than the previous writer anticipates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.62.74 (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: The couple are notable on their own. Last year, they were involved with a similar campaign for Rick Astley  So this is not just a one event thing. They were also instrumental in leading the campaign by creating an important grassroots organization that captured the imagination of over 1 milion followers achieved a huge success against the status quo. Had it not been for their visionary idea and valiant effort, this would not have been possible. They were actually the individuals who suggested the Rage Against the Machine song Killing in the Name. Just that fact makes them notable. It could arguably be any other song, but it was "their" initiative to nominate this specific #1! werldwayd (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally in this situation, the article is titled after the event, not the person. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Development of this page will also allow more references and more details not actually possible on the song page. Their campaign tactics go far beyond just a RATM song and has far more important impact than the song "Killing in the Name". werldwayd (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect any relevant content to Killing in the Name, in order to comply with the ONEEVENT section of the notability inclusion guideline. If further coverage/happenings show that these people exceed ONEEVENT and meet the notability inclusion guidelines for people, then the relevant content can be split back out. -- saberwyn 02:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to the appropriate section in Killing in the Name. WP:BLP1E definitely applies, indeed it's a textbook case. And it is one event, the Ultimate Rick Roll effort last year got to #73 and Morter got not one mention in the press. I love the campaigns against the X Factor though: I bought Jeff Buckley's Hallelujah and Rick Astley - Never Gonna Give You Up last year, and Killing in the Name this year Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. They are not notable outside of the Facebook campaign, which can be adequately covered in the Killing in the Name article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge but consider creating an article about the event itself. The event itself has a claim to notability as the only #1 on downloads alone and the most downloads in the first week after release, and possibly (although this is a bit crystalbally) will have knock-on effects in the charts for years. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not the only #1 on downloads alone - see this BBC story from three years ago -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Killing in the Name and redirect to the same (it should be mentioned that those rare people - like me - who don't use Facebook knew about the campaign). Also, to Chris: Leona Lewis' version of Run made No1 without having a physical release. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  11:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete as only notable for this one event and can be adequately covered in other articles, particularly Killing in the Name. Adambro (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- First off, is it one event? No, its at least two, as has been previously been pointed out. If this were the Rick Astley thing, then yes, this is a one event deal, but since its two different occaisions, that refutes that part of the policy. Two- have the subjects been trying to maintain privacy? Not really. The fact that they're back in the news for doing the same thing they did before pretty much negates that part of BLP1E as well. With BLP1E out of the picture, I see no reason to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per saberwyn. The article can be recreated if notability independent of this single campaign can be established. Hekerui (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Killing in the Name. Did wonder about 'keep' when Simon Cowell offered them jobs today, but unless independent notability emerges they are likely to fade from public view. Peteinterpol (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - completely non-notable; heck if Vanessa George's article gets deleted at AFD for being "non-notable" (despite being headline news at least once a week), then this article is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia rules - this couple are about as notable as my dog; I have NOT heard mention of this couple ever in the print media or TV/radio, only brief mentions online, mostly in blogs. Rapido (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How about interview on prime time BBC News http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/bbc-news-rage-against-machine-1-jon-morter-interview/1406151991 and "UK Press Association" coverage:  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hZ7jeEUpVhXZYksNa_qJeuOUMCAg and for international impact of the Morters the "Toronto Star" biggest newspaper in Canada  http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/737734--simon-cowell-vs-600-000-facebook-punk-rock-fans  Hardly brief online mention, mostly blogs is it?werldwayd (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How about proving they are more notable than Vanessa George? I'd like to see that. Rapido (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHER. George is irrelevant. Werldwayd, we know Morter's been interviewed a bit about it, but that's not going to save the article. He's only known for one event, and unless an event is pretty bloody spectacular (which this isn't) we don't have articles about such people and their 15 minutes of fame. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This event has gathered international interest and has been reported everywhere for the last week or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riksweeney (talk • contribs) 18:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And we have it covered adequately in the article on the single. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Killing_in_the_Name, not notable by themselves per WP:BLP1E. Chris Rocen (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep entirely inappropriate to try and cram details about this couple into the Killing in the Name article. Either it gets an article of its own or it is gone. How did Wikipedia ever end up with a policies that do not leave room for things like this? Be kind, give it a bit of space, this near instant call for deletion is unpleasantly hostile to new editors and good faith contributions. Is this proposed deletion really representative of the joyless exercise Wikipedia has come to? -- Horkana (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly normal for a section in article to be as long as this, so there shouldn't be any worries about "cramming". Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but mostly because other than mentioning their names once there is no good reason to merge any information about them into the article for Killing in the Name. Be under no illusions, a merge is not appropriate here. Keep and delete are the only options. -- Horkana (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why isn't a merge appropriate here? The only information about the couple themselves in this article is their names. Everything is directly relevant to the push to get Killing in the Name of to #1, and can easily be incorporated into that sectio n if it isn't there already. This is standard practice. There's room to argue with Wikiepdia's deletion policies, but putting your own interpretation on the policy and then complain about it is not helpful. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - as an example of the positive aspects of the Great British spirit BBC article regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Not notable in their own right outside of this campaign.  Rob Sinden (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * M&R per above. The JPS talk to me  17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Most of you have heard of the Million Dollar Homepage, right? You know, the guy who sold pixels for a dollar each. Take a look at Articles for deletion/Alex Tew. Same thing as this couple - clearly one-eventers - they are KNOWN for one event; I have not heard media coverage of their Astley attempt, except web articles where it's mentioned in conjuction with coverage of the current Rage Against The Machine campaign. I have not seen an article from a year ago saying "this couple are trying to get Rick Astley to no.1". Think about it carefully, guys. It's the event that is famous, not this couple. Rapido (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as above. This is a typical "famous for 15 minutes" type event.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know. Cowell has offered them a job. They have refused. They're going to do it again next year. On the other hand they were "previously unheard of". But I guess everybody has to start somewhere. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  03:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Missing redirects: Tracy and Jon Morter, The Morters, Morters, Morter, Jon Morter, Tracy Morter, John Morter, Tracey Morter. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  03:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We didn't want to create too many redirects particularly since the article may be up for deletion soon. Once the fate of the article is decided we can go ahead and creating them. But thanks for the reminder werldwayd (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge The event is notable for the volume of sales and media interest but J&T themselves wont go down in history. A mention of them as the instigaros in the relevant RATM/KITN sections shoud be enough to give them the credit as instigators.Gavinturner (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Come on, anyone could set up a facebook group. Ok, so not many would have reached the outcome they did, but are they worthy of an article? There is enough mentioned in the original Killing in the name article as their is. Thenthornthing (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete For all the previously listed reasons. Who these people are is not at all relevant to what they did. A simple mention of their name in the Killing in the Name article is lucky enough for them. Having an article about them would make a mockery of the notability guildlines if this article is kept. --Tom dl (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the ITN Main News item then which even interviews Jon Morter and credits him with the achievement . He boldly declared to ITN: "We have given The Christmas No 1 back to everybody else" werldwayd (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - relevence? How does this video prove anything more than this couple being WP:ONEEVENT? Rapido (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is in the talk page of the article (I don't think the poster is aware of how to respond to AFDs, however it's obviously a delete contribution): Rapido (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am Tracy Morter, and this page really does need to be deleted (apart from being a little incorrect in places) we do not need a page! Everyone made rage number one, we just had a silly idea. Not worthy of a wiki page. moogyboobles (talk)


 * OK, someone saying they are Tracy Morter has made this contribution. (But on the Internet who knows if it is her?). In any case, it makes no difference one way or the other to this debate.  It is the rules of Wikipedia notability that that should determine this.  This contribution is irrelevant to that. Peteinterpol (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if she is what she claims she is (Tracy Morter herself) which I somehow doubt, are we saying the individuals about whom a page exists actually own the page and they decide if a page is appropriate on them or not. So it's a type of veto one gets over page that talks about him/her? werldwayd (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note on why we should delete this: The wishes of the subjects of articles can and should be taken into account if they are not public figures: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." (WP:DELPOL). I think this is Tracy Morter - she uses the same name as her Twitter account, and she does know about the article. In reply to someone on Twitter saying she might have fun editing this article she said "ah yes found it now, more like deleting!".). We should delete this article even in the absence of consensus. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above contribution about "relatively unknown, non-public figures" certainly doesn't apply to these two. After countless interviews on prime time television, on radio, and front pages of tabloids, and international coverage of the Morters named specifically in virtually all international media outlets and news agencies, how can they expect to be treated as some "non-public figures" that should have their privacy and stay away from any public coverage or scrutiny. And since when having a Wikipedia page discussing their impact has become such a shame. Well you cannot have a cake and eat it too. Either you are a public figure, or you are not. So if you are oh so private, why bother to do anything so public as to boldly claim we won't allow an X factor single to become number one. And then go the additional way of "personally" and "specifically" choosing a very ominous American shout song that says: "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me" and you expect people to do exactly what the song tells you NOT to do. Now once you have gotten your way and made people do exactly what you wanted them to do, you did your round tour and did interviews with every media outlet there is, you suddenly become oh so private and not worthy of a mention in Wikipedia... Yeh, right! To editors of Wikipedia, I say: Think about it. Had it not been for the Morters, there would possibly be a protest song, but that song would not ever be in most probability "Killing in the Name". It would be SOME OTHER SONG, but never the Killing song, undoubtedly a PERSONAL favorite repertoire of the Morters themselves. So if it is "Killing in the Name" is what we got at #1, I suggest it is entirely and 100% on the choice the Morters made and falls squarely on their shoulders we had an entirely un-Christmas song this year. And if Wikipedia has this so-called "Killing in the Name" Christmas section anyhow, it is a Morters credit "par excellence" and wouldn't be there WITHOUT their personal choice of song. To the Morters, all I can say (if they actually are the ones who put the note) So you played the game, (and good for you that you did) so take the blame too (.. or the credit if you will). Having said that, I see the general concensus is already for a deletion. Delete if you will. I cannot go on defending a page I created. But do not delete based on the wishes of the Morters. Delete because you think it needs deleting. werldwayd (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

*Keep This is equally in the talk page of the article (I don't think this poster either is aware of how to respond to AfDs, however it's obviously a Keep contribution): werldwayd (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC) "They are already historically significant figures on the UK music scene. Szczels (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - that doesn't say keep, it's just the dubious statement of being "historical figures". Whereas the supposed Tracy Morter comment said "this page really does need to be deleted". Rapido (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't actually say "historical figures". It says "historically significant figures". Significant means notable. werldwayd (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - You're right, it does say "historically significant figures", I apologise for that mistake. However it doesn't say keep. Rapido (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2009 (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.