Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shittymorph

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 argument that there is essentially one source (the interview), and all the citations are reheats and derivatives of that source, has not been successfully refuted and WP:BIO1E wins through.

As with all my deletion closures, I have considered it carefully before closing and am satisfied with my closure. I will not be changing it in response to talk page requests. If you feel this is incorrect, you may proceed directly to Wikipedia:Deletion review and all requirements to notify me are waived. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shittymorph

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than CNET the rest of the sources about this person are "feel good" puff pieces (a la "Bored Panda" variety) and no meaningful in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: one cnet profile is not enough to build a biography on, and none of the other sources add anything. (The sources about reddit testing tipping in particular do nothing for notability, they are beyond trivial passing mentions; piling eight different versions of the same press release into the article doesn't help because 8 times 0 is 0. Sportskeeda is pretty clearly not an RS.) --JBL (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have to agree with TheOther in thinking that the shittymorph interview has enough WP:RS coverage, as pointed out, because despite the lack of biography details (relying on a single source), we have enough notability to warrant a page. The other RS mentions (The Verge, Endgadget, SFist) qualify him as a secondary subject and therefore they can't be called trivial. This is especially relevant considering nineteen ninety eight when the undertaker threw mankind off hеll in a cell, and plummeted sixteen feet through an announcer's table. 2405:201:3001:D85A:416A:CA48:FD4B:2426 (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- haha - you got us. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alright, I’m skeptical of the idea that a user or commenter on any platform can become notable for their comments. I can’t imagine why reliable sources would offer significant coverage of such a person. But... here they did. Contrary to the above, I read the sources listed in the article here to offer sufficient coverage of this person to permit the drafting of an article, and don’t think that they can be dismissed as “puff pieces.” (And even if they were, significant puff coverage in reliable puff sources still creates notability.) Given that reliable sources believe this person to be sufficiently interesting and notable to write about him, I don’t see an argument for us not having an article under the general notability guidelines. Like I said, that FEELS weird, but... you know, that’s where the notability guidelines take us here, so I’m gonna roll with it. (And someone’s got to !vote here by including the copypasta, but I’m not the one to do it.)— TheOther Bob 19:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheOtherBob: There is definitely one reliable source with significant coverage; what's the second one? --JBL (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I count two articles just in CNET, as well as one in Medium, that I think would easily meet the standards. (I can’t add those easily on mobile, but Google will turn them up easily.) I also view the multiple articles discussing the tipping policy as contributing to notability, though I realize those are closer calls; when you’ve got a lot of coverage, the fact that any individual article is short or primarily on a related but separate topic doesn’t bother me. So, weird as it may be, this looks like sufficient coverage. - TheOther Bob 21:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medium is not a reliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. But we actually don’t have to debate that, because there’s plenty else out there. - TheOther Bob 20:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not a reliable source in this context, ever. Praxidicae (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is too. Cheers! - TheOther Bob 21:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOtherBob: That's, like, cute, I guess, but this is a thing about which there is an answer. --JBL (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of tendentious nonsense is why people think poorly of Wikipedia... I said it didn’t matter, and in this case you’re probably right that it doesn’t count, but you guys just can’t drop it. So, fine, since you won’t, you can go back and re-read what you linked me to — which says, and I quote, “unless the author is a subject matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions.” In other words, like I said, sometimes it is, sometimes it’s not. Christ, you guys crack me up. Are we done now, or do you want to ping me again with this silly stuff? - TheOther Bob 22:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saying coverage is '"feel good" puff pieces' is POV and honestly doesn't actually matter even if it were true. Person passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV/NPOV are content policies. There's nothing that says you have to use neutral language in an AFD nomination, and that's exactly what these contributor sourced pieces are. Praxidicae (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is responsible for them adding the tip feature to Reddit. https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/28/18244901/reddit-tipping-feature-test-user-shittymorph-money Notable achievement that got coverage. https://www.cnet.com/news/reddit-celeb-gets-wwe-care-package-on-hell-in-a-cell-anniversary/ covers him, and then CNET gives him a rather long article dedicated to him at https://www.cnet.com/news/reddit-memes-hell-in-a-cell/ Plenty of Google news results to sort through. Dream Focus 20:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is utterly false. An admin decided to make this user the focus of their beta test for one new feature, but he is not "responsible" for them developing this feature. As if anyone responsible for a website's routine actions is automatically notable anyway. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoops, misread it. He was deemed the one to test it out on. As for why Reddit decided shittymorph deserved some free cash, an admin explained that they were a longtime fan of his work Anyway, notable for coverage he got in CNET. Dream Focus 21:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god Delete delete delete I use Reddit too and there are a lot of anonymous users known within the site for posting a lot, this is absurd. It is certainly notable for the Reddit article that they have added a new feature, but this user is just a meme, and coverage is puff pieces about memes or passing mentions. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - There are two interesting things here - that the meme keeps the match fresh in people's memories, and that Reddit implemented a tipping feature. Therefore, I merged some of this relevant content to Reddit#Other features and a new section I created called Hell in a Cell#In popular culture. I'm a bit torn which should be the redirect though. My initial thinking is to send the redirect to the Hell in a Cell content, since Chris' initial notability was established by his meme, not the tipping. If the tipping takes off and coverage expands listing him as the first beneficiary, I could be persuaded to change this opinion. Until then, it's a bit WP:TOOSOON to make Reddit the redirect. Cheers! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like my attempt to salvage the info by merging it in the Hell in a Cell article was reverted by Mr. Hell in a Cell as being irrelevant. [[1]] He must not want the real world to intrude in the make believe world of wrestling. So there's another inadvertent vote against Shittymorph's notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the user is well known enough to get non-trivial RS like CNET. We cannot dismiss the WP:N of this person even if we want to. Lightburst (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst you'd have a point perhaps if that piece were written by their editorial staff and not a contributor. Praxidicae (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that the editorial board of a reliable source have written the article. - TheOther Bob 22:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He means a staff writer, not an outside contributor. Forbes has "Forbes Contributors" who are often outside writers with business relationships with the companies they write about, lessening the impartiality and thus the reliability of the pieces. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Forbes that sort of thing can be a problem, totally agree. But this author is someone with 5,257 articles on CNET on a wide range of topics, apparently focusing primarily on NASA, so it’d be pretty remarkable if she were biased. - TheOther Bob 23:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Bare notability without an encyclopedic value per se. Celestina007 (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with the sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm seeing lots of opinions here, but not RS that justify a WP page about the subject. The tipping articles merit inclusion in the Reddit page, perhaps even a whole section, but not an article about the Reddit user used in the tipping experiment. This seems at best WP:ONEEVENT. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources cited do not show that the person is notable. (t · c) buidhe 00:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of sources within the context of Reddit developing an entire new feature around this particular individual. Right cite (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of sources with 0 in-depth coverage of him. --JBL (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Completly false.★Trekker (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is borderline but the arguments for deletion appear more cogent. Yes, the articles in CNET constitute significant coverage in a reliable and independent source. WP:BASIC calls for multiple sources of this kind. It may be thought that the host of sources about his participation in the beta testing are enough to satisfy this. I don't think so: they all have largely the same content and are clearly not intellectually independent of each other (which is also called for in WP:BASIC). They also don't meet the bar for significant coverage. In general, the abundance of sources on this one aspect makes me think the article could also fall under WP:ONEEVENT. To sum up: the subject fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fail to see why this doesn't clearly qualify as WP:ONEEVENT at best. Nobody has even made a case for significant coverage in reliable/independent sources other than for Shittymorph's role as the test user for a Reddit feature. Why not just include the information about Shittmorph in the appropriate section of the Reddit page? Jmill1806 (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Already done. See Reddit#Other features. I also tried to add it to Hell in a Cell and was reverted by a WP:OWNer. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, that means the /Shittymorph article can be safely deleted. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with Modussiccandi. Reyk _YO! 08:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.