Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Morgan (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus to delete the current article, which is much different than the one present for almost all of the discussion. Permission to speedily renominate is given. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sophie Morgan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

notability/field of expertise not yet established. re-creation of previous article that was deleted after debate for lack of notability Partitas (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article is sourced by news pieces in the Daily Telegraph and The Scottish Sun (which I added yesterday, contesting a PROD of this article), and BBC cover her television appearances. Other news items helping to establish notability are here, here and here. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   07:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing substantial has happened in her career over the last few years that changes the notability decision. I'm sure most of the same references were there then. Whilst she's disabled, she still needs to be notable in her field. ie: paralympians (athletics); Aimee Mullins (model); Stephen Hawkins (physicist); Ade Adepitan (tv presenter). Paradisepark (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So, can you clarify why the sources I have given are either a) unreliable, b) not independent, c) not covering the article's subject in significant depth or d) any combination of these? Saying "It's just not notable" doesn't make it so. And since when have other articles had anything to do with an AfD? -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   08:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Field" notability could be part of what makes this person notable, but what is of greater consideration to this discussion is that neither WP:V nor WP:GNG dictate the content of coverage. In having coverage in multiple reliable sources for whatever reasons, it is up to article contributors to draw information from the available sources and present such to readers in an encyclopedic manner.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is notable, being the subject of multiple independent and reliable sources. A "field of expertise" is not required for our biographies.  Warden (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:ANYBIO: The article doesn't satisfy the requirement that 1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. 2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.  If her specific field is art and tv presenting, as stated in the lede, she doesn't satisfy either.Mehmit (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It also says "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included;" -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   14:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Ongoing news coverage, not extensive, but ongoing. She is often interviewed by disability websites and magazines. The article is not well-referenced, but RS (spanning a significant time period) exist and there is potential for it to be Wikified, properly referenced and tidied up and expanded. These are the same arguments as we had recently for Debbi van der Putten, which was a Snow Keep, and I do not see how Sophie Morgan is any less notable than Debbi van der Putten. She is notable in the disabled world as an activist and campaigner for disabled equality. Mabalu (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per, , . Northamerica1000(talk) 03:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow keep - Per notability requirements as above with plenty of sources. ApprenticeFan  work 06:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - a minor 'celebrity' in the disabled world but little known outside of it. Her reputation seems to have been largely built by her publicist.Transparentfish (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting WP:GNG for the many various aspects of her life and career. While three years ago an article about her was deemed premature, her coverage since that time has grown... not vanished. While certainly not the most notable disabled person ever, she is now just notable enough for Wikipedia. Letting this one remain and continue to grow over time and through regular editing serves the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can't believe this one is up again! Given the content of the debate, another article at a later date when she has achieved more would seem to be the answer.NationalTreasure (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ...you cannot believe that three years after the first did not have quite enough notability, we have a second effort at a topic that has sourcability that it did not back in 2009? Yup. We're now revisiting the topic and judging it... not by what it had in 2009, but rather by what it has in 2012.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned on the article's talk page, I haven't had much time to go and find more sources - but I'm disappointed those who voted "Delete" couldn't rip my argument to shreds, pointing out why the five sources I have routed out since this AfD opened are no good. The best I've read so far is "The Sun - ewwwwww". -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   09:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The removed citation from The Scottish Sun should be returned, as there is no ongoing discussion at WP:RSN about its contextual use here and more recent discussions at RSN of The Sun and affiliates, while generaly disliking tabloids for their style and format, have resulted in use being contextually acceptable, as long as contentious or gossipy assertions are not made and sourced solely to the tabloid. The article talk page discussion was between just two editors, and "two" does not reflect a wider consensus reached elsewhere. I have now added my 2 cents to THAT discussion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is beginning to look a bit like "Disability - ewwwww", but let's not go down THAT path... Mabalu (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the Scottish Sun source, as there seems to be a 3-1 consensus to re-add it. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   08:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to closer: While the opinions for delete above may have been based upon former state of the nominated stub, or upon a belief that the GNG is "over-ruled" by various SNGs intended to work in concert with WP:N, the article has undergone improvement, some with the assistance of the nominator, since the last delete was made.  It now better serves the project and its readers.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:53, 11 September 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.