Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodger Morrison


 * 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. Even the sole "Keep" vote is advocating a complete rewrite, and the existing vanispamcruftisement won't be useful in that endeavour. I'm happy to userify if anyone really wants it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Rodger Morrison

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Appears to be self-promotional; all sources are primary, not seeing any evidence of WP:PROF (eminent in his particular field, etc). Bios like these used to be picked up by WP:SPEEDY, but if a more competent than average creator develops it, they slip by.OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement lacking any WP:RS coverage ... all of the "citations" are references to the subject's published works ... article created and fluffed-up by a single-purpose account with blatant WP:COI issues. Happy Editing! &mdash;  16:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. His citation counts are too low for WP:PROF and what else is there? There's a lot of fluff and trivia in the article but I don't see anything that would speak to his notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP & REWRITE so that it sounds less like a resume/PR-one-sheet.

i've done some basic research & while he's not certainly 'famous' in the general sense, but he's an expert in his field.

professionally published author (meaning it's not just 'vanity press' stuff) of multiple articles & books in his field of study, phd & assistant prof of MIS (Management information systems) at troy university.

it's a pain in the ass googling him because he's got such a common name & because google includes "roger" along with "rodger", but once you get a few pages deep (http:/ /www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&client=ubuntu&channel=cs&ie=UTF-8&q=Management+Information+Systems#hl=en&client=ubuntu&hs=OL&channel=cs&sclient=psy-ab&q=Management+Information+Systems+rodger+morrison&oq=Management+Information+Systems+rodger+morrison&gs_l=serp.3...685.2261.0.3098.16.9.0.0.0.0.309.1595.1j5j2j1.9.0...0.0...1c.hMvnSHywMKA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=b76cc405a8f5df12&biw=1278&bih=850, "management information systems rodger morrison") his name turns up a lot in academic journals, articles, & references (www.aabri.com/manuscripts/11997.pdf for example).

it may seen dreary & unintersting to those of us not fascinated by MIS & related matters, but within his academic field he appears to be a legitimate & notable expert. this article certainly meets the same standard of notability as numerous other bio-articles about academics in other, more interesting fields of study...

granted that the piece is badly-written for an encyclopedic article, it's still worth salvaging.

Lx 121 (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * by the way: i'm sorry that the google search link is long, ugly & non-functional, but some eeeeediot has decided that google belongs on the wikimedia spamblock-filter list...  -__- Lx 121 (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Having published academic papers in itself doesn't meet WP:PROF. Still not seeing how he is particularly notable in this field. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ok, try thinking of it this way: you do the research & make a list of the top 25 people currently in his field (management information systems); i'll let you define the terms of the ranking-system, but the defining criteria should be included with the results. if you do it fairly, & he's not on the list, i shall concede the point. xD  Lx 121 (talk) 02:05, 18 August 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.