Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Morris

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 keep. Sandstein 09:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Morris[edit]

[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)

I do not see why that makes for encyclopedic notability, now or previously. It is not even claimed he was ever the longest in the world, not that I think even that would be suitable encyclopedic content. I do not think we include every successive European record here, or every sucessive world record holder. I'm not even sure we should include even the current world's record here. WP is not Guinness. NOT NEWS at the time, and not encyclopedic now. DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not even sure that he merits a mention in heart transplant; he certainly doesn't merit an article. -- Hoary (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the creator you'd expect me to say that, but I don't always defend articles I wrote a long time ago. The fact is that Morris was a very early transplant patient, and in that context his survival was highly significant. Some of you, I'm guessing, are a lot younger than I am and don't remember those days. The UK had stopped doing heart transplants in 1971 because of the lack of success, and didn't start again until 1979. Morris was one of the first transplant patients operated on by Magdi Yacoub who went on to have a tremendous reputation. For many years, Morris was the poster boy for heart transplant success. To me, it's a record worth mentioning, and I really don't get the argument that it's not notable just because the record has now been exceeded by someone else. It's not like we are short of references. Deb (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you say "one of the youngest", or "very early" or "one of the first treat by..." --how is this a justification for keeping the article on this particular individual? I do remember those days. At the time, each individual patient was treated as a milestone. That's why we have NOT NEWS. DGG ( talk ) 13:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. The nomination appears to be a personal opinion, contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. Andrew D. (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [1] He traveled the world as a keen fund raiser for the British Heart Foundation. Easily passes Passes WP:GNG. Surely even more news coverage of him back then, and in the various nations he visited. No government support at the time of his surgery, he had to help win people over [2]. Is there an official website mentioning him? I see www.heart-transplant.co.uk/derrick.html but can't get it to load. Dream Focus 11:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

certainly there was news coverage, which is why we have NOT NEWS. The interest was temporary for each successive patient. DGG ( talk ) 13:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary, yes, but it did last over 25 years... Deb (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that you seem to conflating two different parts of his story. He did not travel the world as a keen fund raiser, he was a keen fund raiser for the British Heart Foundation and, separately, traveled the world. There is probably not going to be coverage in the various nations he visited, because he was doing so as a private citizen on vacation, not as a fundraiser. Rorshacma (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What DGG and Hoary says. ∯WBG^converse 12:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is hung entirely on obituaries with most of the information taken from direct quotes from Morris himself. We claim, in Wikipedia's voice, that he "travelled the world", but looking at the source that is revealed to be a claim he made about himself, and he apparently clarified that by "the world" he meant "America and the Far East, Europe" -- well, my parents took me on a trip to Toronto when I was a baby, and I've lived about a third of my life in Japan, with the other two thirds spent mostly in Ireland, although I've travelled to most other countries in western Europe, but I certainly wouldn't call that "the world", and Wikipedia should not be either; if we cannot find any sources that cover this topic in more detail and are suitably independent of him (the BBC source is useless given its heavy reliance on direct quotation -- it's a nice obituary, but Wikipedia is not in that business). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Not even pretend compliance with WP:Before. Article's sources already establish notability. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@7&6=thirteen: Please drop the repeated bogus accusation "no compliance with BEFORE". You make this exact same accusation in what seems like half your AFD !votes, maybe more, and virtually every time I see it it makes no sense; what do you make of our article's claim, apparently even more bogus, that he "travelled the world", attributed to a primary source (a direct quotation -- the fact that the quotation appears on the BBC's website is irrelevant) wherein the subject himself defines "the world" as "America", "the Far East", and "Europe"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

聖 Please stop telling me what to say. And please stop with your tired claim that this line of WP:Before is "bogus". It isn't. This article is illustrative of a problem, which is WP:AFD discussions that are completely bogus. They ignore what is already in the article. This discussion, which is permitted under the rules we edit under, is a waste of valuable editor time. Indeed, your directions to me are officious, ineffective, and unhelpful. I will argue as I see fit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They ignore what is already in the article. Umm ... is that a joke? I explicitly asked you what you thought about something that is in the article now and is extremely dubiously sourced, and you appear to have ignored me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you continue to be oblivious to the present article and its many WP:RSs. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no earthly idea what you are talking about at this point. You are either trolling me for fun or pushing some kind of agenda. I honestly don't care enough to figure out which. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, shortly after posting the above I noticed some much stronger evidence that the above user is trolling me.[3] To go into it in more detail would be off-topic for an AFD, but it was a lot more inappopriate for the user to respond to my on-topic question with trolling like the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting read; certainly encyclopaedic to the reader. Agree with all points by keepers. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I appreciate Deb's effort in creating this article, which, although modest, looks rather carefully done. And I appreciate Deb's response above. I may be wrong: Morris may merit more than a mere mention in heart transplant, and he may merit a important part of the article on Magdi Yacoub. But nothing beyond these, as far as I can see. As for 7&6's talk of ignoring WP:Before, which signs of notability had the nominator (DGG) or I lazily failed to look for? 7&6, you have fleshed out the article a little, but what additional notability have you shown? -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd mention a couple of things: the reason most of the references are from obituaries is that, at the time of the transplant, there wasn't an internet, so these are the easiest on-line sources to find. I didn't really want to start expanding the article at length and beginning the search for print sources if it's going to be deleted; there is an article on the Welsh language wiki, which will survive regardless. Deb (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hoary, to respond to you. I added a couple of sources. I formatted all the sources in the article. But more importantly, I mined the existing sources and expanded the article. He is notable precisely because of his extended survival, and because of his symbolic effect on public opinion about transplants. The sourcing is no longer "entirely on obituaries."

WP:Before requires nothing less. Potential expansion, increased sourcing, and seeing what the article can become are all part of the equation. It is a hurdle one should traverse before starting an AFD discussion. I hope you agree, and I hope we all act accordingly in the future. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer the article it was when this WP:AFD was proposed. So we are clear as to what I did, and could have been done, the article history shows:

Total edits 39

Minor edits 21 (53.8%)

(Semi-)automated edits 2 (5.1%)

Reverted edits1 2 (5.1%)

Added (bytes)3 4,328

Deleted (bytes) -433

And that doesn't include the subsequent contributions by other editors.

Thank you

You are shooting at a moving target. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ten independent sources testify to notability. Rathfelder (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An interesting and well-written article. Dormskirk (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He seems to have been a notable patient. Ruslik_Zero 18:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articke meets WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 18:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above four editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. sources already establish notability. WP:Not paper. Lubbad85 (☎) 00:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has more coverage than many of our ~~BLPs~~ articles about people. Has actual coverage about him by the BBC.[4] Just maybe crosses the line for bringing awareness to this condition. So many other BLPs still need deletion for lacking notability however. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a BLP as the subject died in 2005. See WP:CRYBLP. Andrew D. (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - of course. It was perhaps borderline when AfD'd but it is not now. Oculi (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep...Without the backing of any WP...etc... the article is about a recipient who survived for so long unexpectedly. He died from something unrelated to the transplant (unusual too). There are many sources. It is also unusual to mention his name. His transplant was clearly followed closely by the BBC (and see DocJames's BBC link above) and Yacoub mentions his name too (unusual), despite Morris not being the 1st but being the 11th in UK. There is a category for heart transplant recipients and Morris is clearly notable in this category. I have tried to add some information...hope it helps. If additional information required...I would look at his contribution to fundraising. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this, this, this and this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets the GNG as demonstrated by Ritchie. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty obvious GNG keep per Ritchie above. Carrite (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Quite notable, as many others have said.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2019 (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.