Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Morris (activist)

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. Yuser31415 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Morris (activist)

Chris Morris (activist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

• Keep - I can't see any reason to delete it? Gaysimon 16:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's largely fabrication and exaggeration. I know the guy and he's a rampant self-publicist. In fact you'll probably find he wrote the article himself. The very minor role he did play in the events stated happened many years ago, and if you read between the lines you'll see that he didn't actually do that much. It's basically a vanity piece. 86.146.93.170 12:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Although I've just noticed that you appear to have written the original article, so I guess you're him. 86.146.93.170 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not. The only requests I've had from Chris Morris have been to REMOVE material from the page, which I did because that specific info was unsourced and untrue (according to him). He doesn't seem publicity hungry to me, his own website doesn't mention anything about his campaigns and he declined to be interviewed for a uni article I did last year. Gaysimon 15:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't the place to settle personal scores, is it? Chris Morris is well known in the gay community and this article has been on Wikipedia for years with edits by many members and ratings by WikiProject Biography and WikiProject LGBT studies. I think 86.146.93.170 could actually be accused of vandalism here. Randomhouse 20:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well known in the gay community? I don't think so. The only thing he's noted for is something to do with the age of consent many many years ago. He was one of a great many people who were involved in that campaign, including myself. The other one was trying (and failing) to arrest Mugabe, which got about 10 seconds on the evening news one evening (primarily because the *genuine* prominent gay activist Peter Tatchell was involved, otherwise nobody would've cared). If you want to keep him on then that's up to whoever makes the decisions. My suggestion for deletion isn't based on malice. If everyone who's ever been involved with a campaign was entitled to their own Wikipedia entry then the size of the site would double overnight. Although judging by the way you previously edited this article to make him an "outspoken" activist (rather than the.. ermm.. other type of activist?), I can only assume you're a mate of his. And I hardly think you can call an "article for deletion" vandalism. This is why Wikipedia has a democratic system for deletions. I haven't made ANY alterations to the actual article text. 86.146.93.170 11:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, would you also like to edit the article to include details of his supposed past (and presumably present) ownership of a gay porn site, or would that go against the rosy picture you're trying to paint of him as the next prime minister? 86.146.93.170 11:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This AfD was orphaned and not listed on any logs. It is listed now. Kimchi.sg 11:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep; based on the article as of the 10th, the fact that he took a case to the European Court, a case that Jack Straw bartered with him to suspend, and that he personally stopped Mugabe's motorcade amount to notability.--Prosfilaes 13:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment May I also note WP:AGF? The assumption should be that User:86.146.93.170 made an AfD because he honestly thought that it was not notable. Discussions of personal motives should be kept to a minimum; User:Randomhouse also deserves the benefit of the doubt that his goal in making his edits were to improve Wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia, not promote anyone. User:86.146.93.170, I invite you to edit the article to add NPOV, verifiable information to the article; if you can cite it, his ownership of a gay porn site could fall under that category.--Prosfilaes 13:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: the case referred to would appear to actually be Sutherland v. United Kingdom, not Morris v. United Kingdom. I find no evidence for a separate Morris v. United Kingdom case. --Pak21 14:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't want to add information about the gay porn site because frankly I don't think it's a very nice thing to do. As I said before, I'm not doing this out of malice. I just personally don't believe that he is a "notable". However, once again, this is the reason why we have a democratic system on Wikipedia, so if people believe he should be kept then I'm not going to contest it. 86.146.93.170 09:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You appear to be mistaken: Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Pak21 09:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh for gods sake, you know what I mean. Decisions are more often than not based on discussions like these before someone makes a decision. America is a democracy but it still needs a leader.86.146.93.170 11:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not about nice; it's about forming a good biography about someone.--Prosfilaes 12:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Also being accurate. It needs to be verifiable and saying someone runs a porn site without evidence, even on a discussion page, is risky. Gaysimon 15:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It's not risky if you know it to be true. Not that I would claim that of course. Hence why I prefixed my statement with "supposed". 86.146.93.170 16:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Do you have any evidence to support this? If not, you shouldn't really bring it up at all. WP:V Nck Martin farmer 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment I've made some changes in response to this afd; please see the latest version. Gaysimon 15:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as a significant factor in Sutherland v. United Kingdom and the Mugabe incident, although I think it should be made clear that Morris's case was never heard by the European Court. At least as I understand it, the case was purely Sutherland v. United Kingdom; the Morris case was essentially identical, but never went before the court: "[Morris's] case was never heard, but he helped publicise the campaign for equality." [1]. --Pak21 16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: The fact is neither case was actually heard in court but the likelihood of them winning (based on the Commission's report) was enough to force the government to change the law. The binding settlement was with them both. They may have fallen out in later years but it was significant at the time that it was a young couple fighting this and not a professional politician. Big respect to them for that and let's remember the good they both did at that time. Nick 80.225.131.144 17:40, 13 February 2007 (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.