Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorin Morgan-Richards


 * 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. All keep !votes were socks. The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Lorin Morgan-Richards

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Authorship of a play that was performed in a Cleveland public theater seems to be the only real claim of notability (note that Enki, the name of the play, links to a Sumerian god, not this play). Some self-published music and self-published books, that's about it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Lorin Morgan-Richards is relevant as he is a recognized Welsh American who directs the largest national annual Welsh Festival in the United States. He has appeared several times on the BBC with promoting the festival. He has produced plays that have toured in Cleveland, New York City and Los Angeles. ENKI which was mentioned by the editor is one of the plays based on Zecharia Sitchin's theory of alien ancestors referring to the ancient Sumerian god that the page links to. He is also a popular author and musician having been released on Invisible Records in Chicago, and distributed by Caroline Distribution in New York. Richards has also curated several noteworthy shows including an exhibit on Deathrock pioneer Rozz Williams which received international attention in Gothic Beauty Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC) — 76.219.221.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I agree that Richards is relevant as he also curated the historic gathering between the Ioway Nation and Gabrielino/Tongva Nation in Feb of 2010. It marked the first time a Midwestern Native American culture gathered with a Californian Native American culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) 03:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)  — Enkiofarcadia (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment How does your 'keep' rationale address WP:BIO, specifically requirements for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? (I.e., being mentioned here and there in a few local papers doesn't cut it). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Ohnoitsjamie, Sorry, but your comment is too vague, please be more specific which references you believe are poorly sourced so that they can be corrected? As the references seem to include both International and National Media from reliable secondary sources. (i.e., Lorin Morgan-Richards appeared in Civil War Times Illustrated, December 2001 for the play An Occurrence Remembered in New York City.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) 04:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article fails WP:BASIC. The only real reliable sources I'm seeing are ones that aren't about this individual, his name just happens to be mentioned briefly.  That's not sufficient for an article, and doesn't show any notability. - SudoGhost 18:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Those brief mentions are because Richards curated the events. Without his role in many of the events, with the exception of WCE, it would not exist or have existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's all well and good, but it doesn't mean he's notable just because he was involved in something; even if he was essential to the event, those references are about the event, not the person. The article needs reliable sources about the person per WP:BASIC, and doesn't have any. - SudoGhost 22:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BASIC secondary schools that use Richards material count towards a relevant bio. Richards books are used in several secondary schools in the US with his book Me'ma and the Great Mountain for its content on Native Americans and in the US and UK for language schools (which are secondary) for the book A Welsh Alphabet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) 00:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, WP:BASIC does not say this, not at all. Books that the individual wrote (or contributed to) do not grant notability to the individual just from the books existing. - SudoGhost 00:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I've been a fan of Lorin Morgan Richards since ENKI toured and believe he's relevant both for his shows and books. Personally, I have donated to Wikipedia in the past and will not support this site in the future if my favorite artists are deleted just because they do not have the publicity of a Justin Bieber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruinmold (talk • contribs) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)  — Ruinmold (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment In responding to SudoGhost, Yes, it does say this as it is number 4 under WP:BK which supports my argument of relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) 00:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BK pertains to articles about books, not individuals. This article is about an individual, not a book. Even if the book(s) were notable, notability is not inherited, so notable books do not mean that the author is notable. - SudoGhost 01:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on these comments of relevance and OhnoitsJamie's own admission of his notability for the play Enki I vote it should not be deleted. If it does, the editors are not following the Wikipedia's own guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I've been directed here from a LMR fan site and am disappointed in Wikipedia's editors for lack of regard for their own rules. I agree that the thread began with stating Richards is notable for ENKI and following comments have supported his relevance further. — Marilwyd (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Richards has received multiple independent periodical articles and reviews which is covered as point number 3 in WP:AUTHOR for notability. He has also played a major role in co-creating, a significant well-known work in his play ENKI. He was also the subject of a feature length film documentary listed on IMDB entitled Neccessary Discomforts an Artistic Tribute to Rozz Williams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide these "multiple independent periodical articles"? Because they aren't in the article, and nobody has shown any yet. - SudoGhost 16:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I changed your "keep" to "comment," because you don't get to !vote twice. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be happy to supply additional periodical articles on Lorin Morgan-Richards, they are the following: Feature in The Baytown Sun, Volume 89, No. 309. Feature in French magazine - Dangereoux, April 2011 issue #6. Feature in Ambrose Bierce Project Journal, Fall 2008, Volume 4, Number 1. Feature in Macabre Cadaver Horror, Sci-Fi, & Dark Fantasy Journal, November 2009. Feature in Spanish magazine Mentenebre Magazine, Publicado 2010-05-17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, unfortunately I was able to access a number of these, and none of them that I saw provide any significant coverage of the individual. They are mostly book reviews, not about the author.  Others, such as "Cadaver Horror", are random websites, not reliable sources.  None of these appear to demonstrate notability for the author per WP:BASIC. - SudoGhost 17:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Although I did get a good laugh from some of the keep !votes, I think most of these voters lack WP:BEFORE and have no understanding of inclusion criteria. Google web, news, books and scholar searches do not return any material that shows this individual is notable.  I would welcome anybody who !voted "keep" to find a source that does, as I may have missed something.  Saying that you're a fan of Mr. Morgan-Richards or threatening to stop donating to the Wiki will not make him notable.  Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. MisterUnit (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The Ambrose Bierce Project Journal, Fall 2008, Volume 4, Number 1 is a scholarly journal, Mentenebre and Dangereoux

are print magazines in their respected countries. Other major US magazines already mentioned are Civil War Times Magazine and Gothic Beauty Magazine. Wikipedia asks for multiple periodicals which have been given in this thread and the references on the page (I.e. Scene Magazine, Cleveland Free Times, Baytown News). Plus the documentary film and appearances on BBC. You are using bias in your interpretation by selecting only those that seem to fit your stance, ignoring the rest aforementioned. I can continue listing others to prove notability. But this should be sufficient based on Wikipedia standards. There also seems to be a book by Flu Press specifically on the life of Lorin Morgan-Richards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the sources were about the subject, and if there "seems to be" a book about this person, can you show this? - SudoGhost 19:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, see this scanned article and interview in Dangereoux Magazine http://www.hyaenagallery.com/press/dangereux6int.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruinmold (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The book im referring to about Lorin Morgan-Richards has an ISBN of 9786137133781, Published by Flu Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment How can an artist be seen separate from his work? (i.e. A cop is still a cop if he is off duty) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marilwyd (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because this article is about a person. If the book is notable, it has an article.  Notability is not inherited, a person is not notable if they do not satisfy WP:BASIC, and this article does not meet that criteria. - SudoGhost 19:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Disagree with it not meeting criteria, as the book on Richards life, the journals, documentary and ENKI all support the guidelines of WP:BIO. You have asked for proof of notability which has been given sufficiently in these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * All that I can find in the 'scholarly journal' that you referenced is a review of an album by the subject.


 * The book seems to be a collection of Wikipedia articles or something. The first sentence of the description on alibris.com says "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online."


 * You're getting a bit closer with the magazine interview, but it is still not about the subject. It's about an exhibition that we was involved with.  One time I was interviewed by a news reporter at a gas station while I was filling my tank.  He was asking me what I thought about rising fuel prices.  That interview did not make me notable.  The topic of the interview, rising gas prices, was notable. Do you understand the difference?


 * I've seen nothing in the article's references or elsewhere on the web that would show notability to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Can you provide links to specific sources and explain how they show the subject passes these criteria? MisterUnit (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Let me focus on one thing as we seem to be jumping around. According to WP:BIO Lorin Morgan-Richards IS the subject of an independent book put out by Flu Press, which you have seen is available, the author was not involved with the book and thus wherever its resources were derived for the book does not matter legally as it not specifically addressed as such in the Wikipedia guidelines. Subject 3 states the Creative Professional must be "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film". Otherwise Wikipedia will need to update this and make it more specific to what independent books are and are not exactly. As it stands based on WP:BIO, the page should stay legally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Flu Press does not produce books which are considered reliable sources. They take Wikipedia articles and turn them into ebooks, which is advertised on the cover of this book.  This is circular referencing and as Wikipedia is not a reliable source, this book does not give any significance either, as the notability of articles must be given through reliable sources. - SudoGhost 22:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly, we are discussing an Independent book on Lorin Morgan-Richards by Flu Press, not periodicals that require a reliable source based on Wikipedia guidelines. Secondly, this is a printed book. I have seen one in person on a different subject. (Aside note, look at the price for these, $50 and up. No ebook costs this. Look at it at Barnes and Noble it offers free shipping - http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/lorin-morgan-richards-gerd-numitor/1106239034). Thirdly, the comments you are giving are not addressed in the WP:BIO section which again only states the Creative Professional is notable if they are "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film". You can not make up rules to fit your stance. Wikipedia will need to add your addendum if this is the policy, but even now the subject of this discussion is acting prior to its editing and would need to be treated with the current guidelines I've mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a book, it's a printed Wikipedia article; therefore it is not a reliable source, and given that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, you also cannot claim with certainty that it is an independent source, which is the problem with citing a Wikipedia article as a source. Notability is established by reliable sources, it makes no sense to say that this Wikipedia article is notable because there is a Wikipedia article about it, and that's essentially all that is. Also, an ebook costs whatever people charge for it, the fact that it cost $50 is irrelevant (also incorrect that no ebook costs $50, that would be cheap for some topics, which can be rather expensive even in digital format). It would be much more productive to look for actual sources for this topic, because a printed Wikipedia article doesn't show notability under any circumstances, because it isn't a reliable source. - SudoGhost 23:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on the dictionary a book is "A written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers." Wikipedia also talks about what constitutes a book "A book is a set of written, printed, illustrated, or blank sheets, made of ink, paper, parchment, or other materials, usually fastened together to hinge at one side. A single sheet within a book is called a leaf, and each side of a leaf is called a page. A book produced in electronic format is known as an electronic book" . Thus, accordingly, it is a book as Alibris and other sites have denoted it. It may contain Wikipedia articles however it is book, and Wikipedia asks for the Creative Professional to be the subject of an Independent Book. It may be a loophole of some sort but it is what is asked for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability doesn't have loopholes. The top of that guideline says the guideline "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."  This is one of those exceptions.  This book is nothing more than a Wikipedia article.  It is not a reliable source, and cannot be used to show notability. - SudoGhost 23:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The top guideline seems a catch all which is very vague and just as well could support my argument. Additionally it states, "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." Reminder, that this discussion began with Ohnoitsjamie claiming Lorin Morgan-Richards is notable for ENKI. But wanted to question what else is notable. Seems that all the other sources, including primary, support this particular notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a catch all, a Wikipedia article printed out as a book is an unreliable source. Common sense would say that this wouldn't show any notability for an article, that's circular reasoning.  Also, the "claim" was that this ENKI was the most notable thing, although Ohnoitsjamie is free to correct me, but I don't think it was claimed that this is sufficiently notable, else why nominate it for deletion?  There are no reliable third-party sources that have shown any notability, and short of that this article is not notable. - SudoGhost 23:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an artist who's been on Wikipedia for over five years. It is questionable that this now has become an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mileshama (talk • contribs) 00:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)  — Mileshama (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * An article's age has no bearing on notability. - SudoGhost 01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment True, the wiki article books have no relevance. However, my research for the page initially came from an independent book entitled 'Just Before the Dawn Dawneth' written by Edgar Rosolino. It focuses on the early years of Lorin Morgan-Richards, from his Amish background up through music to his first books. It was written by a professor and put out by Massachusetts Press, A Raven Above Press is selling copies of this book on Alibris, and no it is not an ebook. http://www.alibris.com/booksearch.detail?invid=11333563693
 * Note that A Raven Above Press is Lorin Morgan-Richards' own publishing company. I was looking for more information on this book and couldn't find anything else about it.  Does it have an ISBN number? MisterUnit (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that book is by the individual's own publishing company, and shows no notability whatsoever. - SudoGhost 13:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The book is sold by the authors company probably for the sake of a vested interest. But the book was not made by it, that is Massachusetts Press, which I'm guessing was part of the University since a professor wrote it. So it is what it is - an independent book. Whether it holds up to your scrutiny is another thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) 15:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The book was published by Massachusetts Free Press. There is no such thing as Massachusetts Press. MisterUnit (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a significant connection to the individual himself; it isn't an independent book, also it doesn't appear to have an ISBN number either, so it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for book either, let alone independent book. - SudoGhost 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Relist comment: Please remember to ensure keep votes are based in Wikipedia policy. Presently, there are two valid delete votes and no valid keep votes; I am relisting this to allow discussion based in Wikipedia policy to emerge, and to give extra time for valid sources to be presented. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC) 
 * Delete None of the references that I looked at suggest that the subject of the article is notable, on the contrary if these are the best that people can find then he certainly isn't notable. We need multiple reliable secondary sources with substantive coverage of the person, and I've yet to see anything remotely resembling that. CodeTheorist (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Seriously, two links on google news, one to his own site, and we're debating this? Nope, fails WP:GNG, delete. --Fbifriday (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Three of the users that expressed their opinion to keep the article above have been confirmed as sockpuppets. See the relavent investigation. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 13:27, 18 July 2012 (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.