Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgz


 * 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. There is a rough consensus that most of the sources being cited in the pro-keep comments don't meet our guidelines for establishing notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Morgz
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks notability. There is plenty of coverage out there about Hudson. It is either in relationship to the Polish Gambling site, which is not really about him and more a BLP1E to the extent it is, local coverage about too many fans at a mall, promotional and non-biographical coverage of an appearance tour, or about his pranks from non-RS. There's lots of this coverage but the WP:GNG doesn't say lots of bad coverage adds up to notability. It says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. formatting in the original That is not threshold is not met here. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * General comment Just noting that this article was legitimately recreated via the AfC process and was approved by, who's highly trusted in this area, and that's why G4 doesn't apply here. ~Swarm~   {talk}  20:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Indeed and as I noted at his talk page the "best" coverage, while still inadequate, has occurred since that AfD making a new discussion appropriate and necessary. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks Swarm and Barkeep49. At any rate the last AfD was in Sept 2017 which is a long time ago in Youtube fame time. It was then deleted twice shortly after based on the AfD. I'm not thrilled that a 17 year old kid can be considered notable for talking about pranks on youtube but 8+ million subscribers and over a billion views seems to support notability under our current standards for youtube personality bios. I could not come up with a strong reason to decline the page and still operate within the guidelines of AfC where we accept topics that are likely to survive an AfD. I support having a discussion and decision on this case. A key question is going to be the reliability of some of the key sources. Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. If those numbers are correct, and they can be proven to be correct, then he is eminently notable.  scope_creep Talk  10:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. They are pulled in via some automated process so they are as reliable as any Youtube views and Subscriber counts. Yes you can buy views and subscribers but not that many. Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between "fame" and notability. We don't have SNGs based on Youtube hits. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to have started promoting gambling to underage children via fat loot boxes, so thrown off the site. News articles in the London Times, Sun, and Express means the article passes WP:SIGCOV. Also on Kotaku.  scope_creep Talk  10:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The WP:GNG has been met, plenty of reliable sources give this person significant coverage. It doesn't matter where the coverage is good or bad, that has nothing to do with the notability guidelines.  Hitler has nothing but bad coverage in the media, that doesn't mean we delete his article.   D r e a m Focus  14:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am saying that the quality of the coverage is poor (bad). I am making no judgement about Morgan himself. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was about to edit my comment, having misread things. Anyway, some places give him significant coverage others just brief mentions.   D r e a m Focus  14:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Sun is a depreciated source and so while I found that article it would not be considered reliable. The best sourcing comes recently around this gambling promotional accusation. However, that whole thing seems to suggest BLP1E more than anything, even where the coverage was SIGCOV of him and not just this incident in general. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Despite 5,540 articles using it, it was declared at the 9th RFC for it to not be a reliable source anymore after a lot of people voted one way or the other. Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Anyway, the BBC briefly talks about him at [] and then interviewed him with Toby Foster at .  Having over a billion people see his YouTube videos and 8 million subscribers, there should be more coverage of him out there.   D r e a m Focus  19:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG. Also BBC Panorama article from yesterday about Morgz' promotion of the lootbox site . CoolSkittle  (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the nominator mentioned this AfD to me on my talk page during a separate conversation. The page is currently written promotionally, and his only coverage which might pass WP:GNG is negative WP:BLP for trying to get teenagers to gamble. Of the sources on the page, the Sun doesn't count, and most of the mentions are extremely trivial (though Polygon does call him one of the largest youtubers) except for the gambling thing. This may be overly sensitive or WP:TOOSOON, but I would delete or at least draftify on WP:PROMO grounds. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In this instance you remove the promotional content. The gambling aspect was at the very end of Youtube career and the coverage in the Time and Express is not trivial. There is plenty of other coverage.  scope_creep Talk  15:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Express literally just prints his name. All I can see from the Times article is that he gets name-dropped. How is that not "trivial?" SportingFlyer  T · C  22:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. For a media-BLP, not one single main UK media outlet with an article on the subject (never mind several per WP:GNG).  The Sun is junk and not a suitable reference for WP.  Can't even find a reference to the subject in the DailyMail (which is still low-grade, but if they are not picking up a UK-based "media celebrity", that says a lot about how little-notable he is).   Youtube hits are junk (claim of a billion views and no mention even in the DailyMail – lol; I am surprised to see WP editors quoting this).  The adverse press from running gambling ads on his site do not make him inherently notable, and in each case his name is just listed as an example with others. BLP's should not have to "contrive" or "reach" for sources of WP notability, especially when they are media-BLPs who therefore should have lots of good RS noting them; it should be very straightforward.  For him it is not there, because he is not WP notable. Britishfinance (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This is him on Youtube:] with 8.3 million followers. This is the stats page with 1.1billion views. As regarding the suppose trivial news coverage. The reason that it is not trivial, is that both the same names are mentioned in the express and times. Both the articles are in context. They are both about those two people. So they are not trivial.   scope_creep Talk  11:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe in youtube "one billion hits" land that arguement would work. In WP it is WP:GNG which requires significant independent quality RS to establish notabilty. This UK-based media figure – despite his "hits" – has none in the significant UK RS (nevermind outside of the UK, despite a material % of the world's population watching him on youtube ..... according to youtube). Even in the 2nd tier media-obsessed UK RS (e.g. Daily Mail), he is a ghost (the Sun is not even 2nd tier). Youtube hits are just an advertising scam, which is why WP ignores them for the purposes of meeting WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia doesn't ignore them. On Wikipedia any value over 250k viewers is considered notable and it has been that way for more than 5 years. He has 8.3million viewers, which is well on the way to twice of population of Scotland, easily passing WP:GNG.  scope_creep Talk  18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Where do you get those numbers? I had looked a couple weeks ago for this kind of discussion and came up empty. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately even if there were some sort of SNG about the number of Youtube hits, you would still need to demonstrate WP:GNG. I don't care how many views he has if the only reliable secondary sources which talk about him only mention him in passing, as do the Express and Times. I'm happy to revisit my !vote if more reliable secondary sources can be found. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The mans YouTube page. I did as well, and it was empty. I suspect he has made a deal with Google not to promote fat loot boxes and been allowed back in. He is certainly fully functioning now. Go to Youtube and search for Morgz. Hope that helps. As regards the 250k value, I dont know. Somebody passed to me donkies ago in a similar Afd. It is worth noting, that there are several 10'000's of articles of similar social media stars on Wikipedia that are considered notable.  Are you really positing the fact that social media stars, that are part of the biggest growth industry in the world when you included companies like e.g Twitch, Instagram are taken into account, would not be included within Wikipedia notabily criteria, that huge segment of society suddenly cut out and considered not notable, even though now they are considered the most famous and sought after group of people on the planet, even more so than models. It seems a bit odd that Wikipedia would make such a fundamental and basic mistake. Of course it is nonsense.   scope_creep Talk  19:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm asking for reliable secondary sources which clearly demonstrate his notability to ensure there's enough here that's not WP:OR for us to write an article on him. No one is entitled to a Wikipedia article. If he's an important part of this culture, this should be very easy to do, but I haven't seen any source which passes WP:GNG yet. Even the BBC article barely mentions him. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Followers of youtube's made-up hits never seem to reconcile the made-up youtube fame with actual mentions in media RS.  Don King was the master of seeing the public didn't want to a $10k purse fight (e.g. the actual purse), they wanted to see a $10m purse fight.  Youtube has perfected his scam as a way of drawing traffic to their site.  The "tell" is the disconnect between youtube's "hits" and actual notability; as this subject fails so spectacularly.   Britishfinance (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is that. You cant write an article if there is no sources to validate the content. Those hits are making a lot of people very rich, and these people only live inside social media. The don't need old media to validate them, they don't care and they don't want it. Their whole online existence is concomitant on having a social media fabric to work and live in. They tried closed system at the beginning of the internet, and they were a failure. I'll see if I can find some extra sources.   scope_creep Talk  19:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Old media only covers internet personalities if they slip up. They're competition. CoolSkittle  (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The UK's DailyMail (which WP does not yet consider an RS for WP), is obsessed with UK-social media stars.   , and yet on Morgz, nothing. The issue is not old vs. new world, it is just that Morgz's notability is faked. Britishfinance (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The Daily Fail is not a RS as you say. I'll wait and see if Scope csn find any other sources. CoolSkittle  (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. And as I said, he doesn't get a single passing reference in even the DailyMail.  Not to repeat this point again, but the BLP notability criteria should not be "gamed".  There are too many AfD's of BLPs where the person is not the subject of a single main article in even a 2nd tier RS; and editors are trying to cobble together scraps of "passing references", mentions in 4/5th tier sources etc. to "contrive" a case for notability (what they are really proving is "existance", not "notability").  In the world of fake news (and fake youtube hits), having a BLP in WP should mean something.  It should be something that it is worth spending our collective time on. Sorry for the rant. Britishfinance (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I found a couple of other articles about him. One was a news article on the former BBC3 news site, but there is really not that much in it. It discusses the loot boxes and a few other things. The other one is an interview and not RS. He is notable, but there wasnt a great amount of source to validate an article. Not enough anyway. I suspect there will be more written about as he finished his march toward 2 billion view and he gets older. He is certainly up there, and we should have an article, even from a historical viewpoint. This is the first generation of these types of people, and once it is gone. The guy is a whale, but not at the moment.   scope_creep Talk  13:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Scope creep, but am open to recreation if there are more sources in the future. CoolSkittle  (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2019 (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.