Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ty Morse


 * 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. The deletion arguments seemed more thorough and based on relevant policies. Killiondude (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Ty Morse

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG.Typical promo-spam.Non-rel. biz journals or paid stuff.Nothing non-trivial in RS. Winged Blades Godric 07:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep Delete: From 100 Google search results and from Google Books results, per WP:GNG the topic did not receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, therefore it is presumed to not be suitable for a stand-alone article.  Analyzing the sources presented by Jemima1418 (below), per GNG, topic, although not solidly, may actually receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, therefore it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Taking into account info by Scope creep, below, that one of the sources may be pr spam, I tried finding another reliable source with significant coverage of the topic, but I was not able to find it, even though I may have looked for 30-60 minutes. Therefore I think that the topic, although it has received coverage it has not received it in a significant way, so per GNG, probably the topic is not suitable for a stand-alone article, unless more evidence is provided to the contrary. Thinker78 (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Edited 08:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Edited 07:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 10:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 10:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 10:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 10:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 10:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Marginal evidence of notability cited here but additional evidence can be found in Songwhale. Article needs work on WP:PROMOTIONAL aspects but deletion is not required to address this. ~Kvng (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is another piece of promo-spam. Winged Blades Godric 16:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Additional evidence of notability is demonstrated in these sources, which could be added to page content:
 * Bencivenga, Natalie. 1 Sep 2014. South Side entrepreneur turns lemons into LemonAID. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
 * Benz, Kate. 3 Nov 2015. Wedding Didn't Happen, But Pittsburgh entrepreneur looks on bright side. TribLive.
 * Ryman, Richard. 29 Aug 2017. Japanese Packers' fans passion pays off with game invite and documentary. Green Bay Press-Gazette.
 * Editor. 31 Aug 2017. Documentary about Packers fandom in Japan seeks kickstarter funding. Milwaukee Independent.
 * Ryman, Richard. 14 Sep 2017. Love of Packers made easy decision on hosting Japanese fans. Green Bay Press-Gazette.
 * Shih, Savannah. 25 Oct 2017. Japanese Packers Fans Go Wild at Green Bay Game. HuffPost. Jemima1418 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * PBS-affiliate WQED piece on Songwhale
 * Flanigan, Kathy. 9 Oct 2008. Stepping up for a purpose: New footwear line benefits charitable effort. Journal Sentinel.
 * Green, Elwin. 21 Oct 2008. Songwhale serves Steelers fans with 'premium content.' Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
 * Lindeman, Teresa F. 9 Jul 2011. Team success can spell marketing success. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
 * Cloonan, Anne. 26 Apr 2012. Conference immerses high school students in job possibilities. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
 * Schmitz, Jon. 30 Apr 2012. Children can play game by texting at bus stops. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Jemima1418 (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:GNG. Only trivial mention, no significant coverage.
 * Fails GNG. Only trivial mention, no significant coverage.
 * May meet GNG.
 * Fails GNG. Only trivial mention, no significant coverage.
 * Per GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."
 * Doesn't seem to meet GNG. It appears to be a trivial mention and not significant coverage.
 * Seems to meet GNG.
 * Fails GNG. Only trivial mention, no significant coverage.
 * Seems to meet GNG.
 * See reply 5 above.
 * See reply 5 above.
 * See reply 5 above. Thinker78 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't included this as a source since I'm not sure if it counts as secondary, but there is also an interview conducted by Joan Raymond in the New York Times. Jemima1418 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * According to GNG, sources have to be independent of the subject, works produced by the article's subject are excluded; therefore this New York Times article fails GNG. Thinker78 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added some additional responses to Winged Blades Godric section "Comments by nominator" Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jemima1418, Kvng. WP:PROMOTIONAL is not the major criteria to delete, in future wiki editors can add few more sources to make it neutral. Genome$100 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How about you stop disrupting other AFDs to cover-up your main purposes of promoting OMICS and Co.? Winged Blades Godric 10:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete The references in the article, and above are not particularly strong, and seem to be a mix of markering skits, pamphlets, press relaases, trade paper articles relating to his company, not him. Several of them are the same subject, and only mention him by name. The Songwhale company isn't him. This is a WP:BLP article. scope_creep (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * References are not particularly strong but some of them may or seem to meet GNG. This is one gray case, but I lean wobbly in keeping the article. And, per WP:ATD, "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first". Thinker78 (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Edited 07:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Thinker78 says here that there is some evidence of GNG which merits keeping the page while encouraging revision of the page to improve it. Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Heavily promotional article, which violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. Such advertising breaks WP Terms of Use and threatens the retainment of licence to operate. Whatever happens, the article will be undergoing an extensive copyedit, after this WP:AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article may need rewriting, but the topic may be notable, so it probably shouldn't be deleted, unless it is found to be non-notable or in other unspecified cases. I don't see it as a severe case warranting deletion. A copyright issue may be a severe case, but usually what happens is that the offending information is deleted and the page history containing it made unavailable, but the article itself is not deleted. What do you mean with "threatens the retainment of licence to operate"? Whose licence? Thinker78 (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's licence to operate as a charity. I don't see any copyright issue in it. I understand the processes on WP very well. When a copyedit is completed on the article, almost all the ref's for the subject will be gone, as most of those present are the company. I'll do it today, and an accurate reflection of the articles content will appear. Ty Morse is two articles in one. It conflates the company Songwhale with him. Ty Morse!=Songwhale. Ty Morse article is WP:BLP. The Songwhale is a WP:ORG article. Almost all references in the Ty Morse articles are about his companies. scope_creep (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by nominator--
 * Bencivenga, Natalie. 1 Sep 2014. South Side entrepreneur turns lemons into LemonAID. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
 * A trivial name-mention as the Best Man of a wedding.I have strong doubts about editorial practices.Many article resembles PR Spam.
 * Yes, I understand your point here and for the next one. Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Benz, Kate. 3 Nov 2015. Wedding Didn't Happen, But Pittsburgh entrepreneur looks on bright side. TribLive.
 * Same comments as to the one just before.
 * Ryman, Richard. 29 Aug 2017. Japanese Packers' fans passion pays off with game invite and documentary. Green Bay Press-Gazette.
 * Paid-PR Spam.Press-Gazettes etc. ae typical business--speak for PR collection etc.Fails RS.
 * This is the largest in-print publication in Green Bay, Wisconsin and it is part of the USA Today network. This is a local paper, not a PR collection.Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Editor. 31 Aug 2017. Documentary about Packers fandom in Japan seeks kickstarter funding. Milwaukee Independent.
 * A trivial name metion.Have strong doubts about it's editorial standards and whether this is a RS.
 * The article is about a project initiated by the subject, so rather than a trivial mention, this seems to meet GNG since the subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Additionally, it might be valuable to review the "About Us" for Milwaukee Independent which will clarify the journalistic integrity of it as an RS. Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Ryman, Richard. 14 Sep 2017. Love of Packers made easy decision on hosting Japanese fans. Green Bay Press-Gazette.
 * Same comments as to Ref 3.
 * Again, this is a local paper that's part of the USA Today network. Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Shih, Savannah. 25 Oct 2017. Japanese Packers Fans Go Wild at Green Bay Game. HuffPost.
 * A lone trivial name mention.
 * Again, this article is about the subject and one of his recent projects, so I would think this would count for GNG.Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * PBS-affiliate WQED piece on Songwhale
 * We are talking about TY Morse, not Songwhale.Notability is NOTINHERITED
 * Understood. But again, Ty Morse is the subject and main participant in this piece for PBS, so does notability have to be completely separate from the company? Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Flanigan, Kathy. 9 Oct 2008. Stepping up for a purpose: New footwear line benefits charitable effort. Journal Sentinel.
 * A lone trivial name mention.
 * Green, Elwin. 21 Oct 2008. Songwhale serves Steelers fans with 'premium content.' Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
 * Same comments as to Ref 1.
 * Lindeman, Teresa F. 9 Jul 2011. Team success can spell marketing success. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
 * Same comments as to Ref 1.
 * Cloonan, Anne. 26 Apr 2012. Conference immerses high school students in job possibilities. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
 * I don't see any mention!
 * Schmitz, Jon. 30 Apr 2012. Children can play game by texting at bus stops. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
 * I don't see any mention!


 * Please don't throw up every G-Hit the subject retrieves!
 * My apologies. I was trying to find additional sources beyond those used in the article to support the discussion of GNG. I tried to be discriminating in my choices of references but may have worked too fast. Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thus to conclude, there is still a comprehensive lack of non-trivial sustained coverage that is needed to make the subject deserve a WP entry. Winged Blades Godric 10:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. How do you know the Green Bay Press-Gazette article is pr spam? 2. The PBS affiliate addresses the topic about Ty Morse, it doesn't just mention him. And per GNG, the topic, which doesn't need to be the main topic, seems to have significant coverage in the source. 3. In my opinion, the 2008 Pittsburgh Post article, per WP:GNG, addresses the topic directly and in detail. How do you define "in detail"? I see that the article let us know Ty Morse's name, gender, age, job title, place of work, a couple of details of his past, and a location where he has lived. I think that is some detail. Happy new year! Thinker78 (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment In reply to Thinker78. The phrase When Ty Morse walked into a restaurant in Tokyo.  is repeated 5 times, on web, means it is a press release (or explicity PR scam from WP's viewpoint regarding this ). The press release has been offered, [paid] to five different news outlets, in different area and intructed to write it, in that manner. So any ref that is related to that PR, is not RS. There is no converage, and the subject is not independently notable to deserve an article. scope_creep (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment In reply to scope_creep. The Green Bay Press-Gazette and the Pittsburgh Press-Gazette are part of Gannett Company, which is one of the largest publishers of newspapers, including USA Today. How are articles in the newspaper "PR Spam"? The article was probably syndicated by the USA Today affiliates, which resulted in repeated information.Jemima1418 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete lots and lots of low quality references do not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment In reply to John Pack Lambert. These citations are primarily from newspapers. How are newspapers low quality references?Jemima1418 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the comments analyzing the references. Many of those newspaper articles are trivial mentions of Ty Morse, therefore are low quality references. Please read WP:GNG to determine how is notability determined. Thinker78 (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Additional considerations: 1. The Shelby Le Duc article, which is already cited in the Ty Morse entry, "Japanese Packers fans get full Green Bay experience," was published in USA Today and includes references to Ty Morse as well as a video the USA Today team prepared in connection with their article. Is this relevant for notability? 2. This article has been posted on wikipedia since 2014 and went through the Articles for Creation process. Why is it necessary to delete the article now? Can't it be edited to resolve the issues with the article?Jemima1418 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. Scope_creep speculated that that article is public relations spam, and as such not a reliable reference. I tried to look for an additional reference and didn't find any. 2. How do you know it went through the Articles for Creation process? Any registered editor was able to post an article directly in 2014, as far as I know. Whether it is necessary to delete the article or not is going to be determined by consensus here. Why now? Because the article came to the attention of an editor, for any number of reasons, and decided to propose it for deletion. If the issue of the article is determined to be lack of notability of the topic then it can't just be edited, it will be deleted. Read all the comments here to find out the rationale of the various editors, and you can post replies and maybe address the concerns of those who opine the article should be deleted, like submitting new evidence of notability. Thinker78 (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment In reply to Thinker78. Thanks for your suggestions. 1. Scope_creep has made an assertion that the article is spam; however, what is that assertion based on? Shelby Le Duc is a staff writer at the Green Bay Press-Gazette, which is part of the USA Today network. And the multiple appearances of the same story, which suggested to Scope_creep that the article was spam, are all appearing in affiliates of the USA Today network, which more likely suggests that because of the story's relevance USA Today chose to syndicate it and run it in multiple markets. As for additional references, the story is referred to in two different local news sources listed here: the Milwaukee Independent and the Green Bay Press-Gazette. 2. Evidence that this article went through the Articles of Creation process is viewable in the article history. Jemima1418 (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment To clarify, the references here are in addition to those already cited in the article. For example, doesn't the Alex Nixon article, "Lawrenceville firm Songwhale benefits from growth in e-commerce," which is primarily about Ty Morse and was published in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, the second largest news publication in that city, meet RS and GNG? Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't mentioned this Nixon article until now. You should have made it more clear that it is new evidence of notability. I read it before, and I was undecided about its degree of detail on the topic, so I didn't use it as reference. It might or might not meet GNG. But I think it shouldn't be so difficult to find reliable sources that speak directly and in detail about a topic if it is notable. That's why now I lean on deletion, although I am a bit unsure if this topic is or is not notable. It is a gray case. Thinker78 (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment According to the additional criteria for notability of people, WP:ANYBIO, the person may be nominated for a major award several times. The subject has been nominated for the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year award twice. Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (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.