Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgpie (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 keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morgpie

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Most sources are not significant coverage or from non-reliable sources. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER.

Any independent coverage of her from reliable sources seems to fall under WP:BLP1E. A one-off stunt on Twitch to attempt to circumvent guidelines is not notable.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; however, just because it is not censored doesn't mean that pornographic persons get a pass on meeting notability because people are too afraid to nominate them out of fear of being called a censor.

(renomination after first nomination was speedy-closed due to article being on the Main Page) ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Video games, and Texas. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article, I obviously am advocating for a keep here. It was already speedy kept because it appeared on the main page in the DYK section. This means it already underwent the DYK review process which ensures that referencing is suitable and appropriate, and ensures the article is presentable. If one goes to the DYK nom discussion, they can see this was a bit more of an involved process too. There, I addressed why specific sources worked and conceded ones that didn't. Those that totally didn't have since been removed and replaced. Ultimately, I made sure during that process to have sources within the article to be in-line with how WP:RSP and WP:VG/RS allows for specific sources to be approached/implemented. I apologize if this is in any way inappropriate or out of place, but I figured a courtesy ping for that DYK nom's reviewer (@Tenpop421:) and promoter (@Launchballer:) may end up being helpful to further understand why that DYK nom was successful and found no issues with sourcing.

To be totally comprehensive/fair and address the concerns listed here:

"Fails to meet WP:GNG. Most sources are not significant coverage or from non-reliable sources. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER."

No, in my view, this does not fail to meet WP:GNG. Idk why "most sources" matters here (and I know it doesn't as per WP:GNG only asking that articles have significant coverage in reliable sources, but doesn't set any real hard lines on how many of the article's sources need to be meeting that criteria, though I assume the bare minimum is two since plural "reliable sources" is written in criteria). Yes, the majority of sources I incorporated do not do full deep-dives on Morgpie. Some of them mention her in passing, and some of the sources the article uses are there just to verify context around her (i.e. the Ars Technica source). However, there are present multiple sources that do satisfy the criteria of being significant coverage and reliable: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I'd also argue other sources such as 6, and 7 help supplement/flesh out the article's sourcing. Basically, if there was a lack of sourcing present in regards to satisfying WP:GNG, it would be made up by the whole being greater than the sum of the parts here (in terms of sourcing). But like I'm saying, ample sourcing is there.

Also WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ENTERTAINER is met in aggregate here. Those criteria are so briefly detailed/described, but points 1 and 2 in WP:CREATIVE are met here. Those two points that ask the individual to (1) be regarded as important/cited by peers and (2) have originated a new concept/theory/technique. That's covered by the fact that there is sourcing present (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that cites her originating metas (essentially Twitch content-equivalent of a concept/technique/genre) that influenced other creators on the platform (whether they like her content or not). Here's an additional source of one of the platform's biggest creators (Cr1TiKaL, who in this case would be considered her peer or at least contemporary on Twitch) calling her the "most influential". I would say this sort of thing also helps satisfy point 2 ("The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.") of the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria.

"Any independent coverage of her from reliable sources seems to fall under WP:BLP1E. A one-off stunt on Twitch to attempt to circumvent guidelines is not notable."

This wasn't a "one-off stunt" though. Sourcing present, especially from 2024, make it clear that she has multiple times influenced other creators on the platform (as well as the platform itself to respond to her content). Sentences from sourcing present in the article include: (1); "This isn't the first time Morgpie's creativity has led Twitch to a reactionary policy change"; (2); "several risqué streams hosted by one of the platform's most notorious boundary pushers. Morgpie, who played a pivotal in the "topless meta" that flourished on Twitch last December, found a new way to challenge Twitch's censors". The other points in the WP:BLP1E criteria ("The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" and "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" are also not applicable here; as an active streamer, she is not even trying to remain a low-profile individual; and her role in the "one-off stunt" here (again not a one-off, anyway, but if it was,) was both substantial and well documented.

Also, as a further consideration, she was a pornographic actress prior to becoming a Twitch streamer, which further suggests she isn't notable for one event, and this is also bolstered by her winning of major porn industry awards (1), 2) which also establishes her as notable outside of the Twitch content sphere.

"Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; however, just because it is not censored doesn't mean that pornographic persons get a pass on meeting notability because people are too afraid to nominate them out of fear of being called a censor."

I actually don't care about this. I definitely am assuming good faith here in the nomination. I also honestly wouldn't know whether pornographic-industry bios are more or less likely to be tagged for deletion. I do think the nomination (in my view) is closer to snow side of the spectrum than not, but I don't think it was maliciously intended nor do I think you're trying to be a censor.

Soulbust (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comment: Notability demonstrated by several incidents involving apparent nudity causing a series of reactions from others. At the same time, the article's section on this topic is sensationally written and artificially inflated through opinions and statements from official Twitch, other streamers and magazine/news editors as well as questionable "general opinions" to show more content than what is being shown. While it absolutely fails WP:BLP1E, being a lower profile individual with little notability outside of the stunt. It does demonstrate the most basic of GNG, so I'm not considering a Delete just yet. Still, I don't believe users need the picture of topless Morgpie or her playing Fortnite greenscreened on her buttocks to identify her behavior of streaming with a risque sense of humor to apparently varied reception as a subject of (exaggerated) discussion in the article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself stated "Notability demonstrated" and that is passes GNG (also shouldn't and really doesn't matter if it passes the "most basic" criteria or not: if it passes, it passes). So the notability here isn't the issue. So already, that's one rationale in the nomination you disagree with. You agree with the "WP:BLP1E" concern, but as I said above in my initial comment, there are in fact multiple moments in her Twitch content career described in the article's prose and indeed cited by the sources used. I addressed that BLP1E concern in my comment, and I feel like calling what she did a "stunt", likely unintentionally but still, downplays the content in the article? If I recall correctly, none of the sourcing describes it as a stunt, so trying to place that description on her content wouldn't be in bounds here.
Your other issues seems to be with how the article is written and the imagery used. Those shouldn't come into play in regards to deleting the whole article. Those are issues that can be addressed by improving the article instead of just nuking it entirely. But at the same time, how is the article written sensationally? Like where is the sensationalism? Genuinely, please point out the concrete examples or instances of that, because I wrote the majority of this article, and actually do not appreciate that it's being called "sensational". I tried my best to write it in the objective, encyclopedic wikivoice that is expected on here, so if you're going to call it sensational, then point out the instances where that may occur and I'll see if I can tweak/fix/address it. But doing a quick re-skim over the prose right now, I don't really see what you can be referring to.
I also don't get your concern about "artificial inflation" of the prose. You mention that's done by opinions and statements from "official Twitch, other streamers and magazine/news editors as well as questionable "general opinions" to show more content than what is being shown." But okay yeah, I think including how Twitch, the platform itself, officially responded to her content is absolutely critical and necessary here... so what's the issue? Including that info doesn't "inflate" the article, "artificially" or otherwise. How other streamers reacted is needed here too, because it provides a sense of the content's reception, and the article doesn't go overboard with any sort of exhaustive list of every single person's feelings on it. Also, the deletion nomination invokes the rationale of the article supposedly failing WP:CREATIVE. That guideline literally mentions peers regarding the subject as important as a criteria that if met, establishes the subject's notability. So how then does including other streamers' (i.e. peers') opinions on her as influential "inflate" the article? Regarding "Magazine/news editors" opinions, those should be more than fine to include because they give a third-party opinion/view of the subject and her content. I actually think there's only one such opinion included in the article (the Stanley quote), and aside it's just standard inclusion of third-party reception of someone's content. What's the issue there?

Other statements in the reception section are included to describe+cite (1) the influence of Morgpie's content on other streamers' output (i.e. copycat streamers), (2) comparisons to a previous meta (which I found relevant to include because Morgpie commented on this herself), and (3) how Twitch users reacted to the policy changes that, and this is critical to understand here, occurred in response to the content that Morgpie popularized on the platform. How is any of that undue or inflationary to include and how would that be trying to "show more content than what is being shown" (which I am already unsure about what that means).

The images used are also in-bounds here, as they help give a visual to the article (and there is no explicit nudity used, so it doesn't go past any potentially gratuitous boundary), but even if you don't think or don't like the images used, again that concern shouldn't be concentrated into the deletion of the article, so I don't think it's relevant to bring up nor necessary for me to elaborate further about it in this particular space/discussion. Soulbust (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I forgot to save updates I made to that comment before your response so I apologize for that. You made some good points but I'm still not sure about the ultimate fate of the article unless more editors chime in on their opinions. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize honestly. I do understand the goal here is to be constructive overall. Also, sorry if I came across aggressive in any way, I think I might have after re-reading my reply a bit, and if I did, that was not intentional. Soulbust (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless I misread the article, it wasn't "a one-off stunt on Twitch to circumvent guidelines", but multiple stunts on Twitch: December 2023 and March 2024, each of which got coverage. Twitch seems to be where she works, and doing stunts is a reasonable first order approximation to what being on Twitch is. That's not BLP1E, that's an oeuvre . --GRuban (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found and added a free image to the article infobox. (I do that occasionally.) Have no fear - lots of clothing! --GRuban (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Baffling nomination. This clearly meets WP:SUSTAINED.--Laun chba ller 17:20, 18 April 2025 (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.