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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Morgridge[edit]

Carrie Morgridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotional article about a member of a rich family, who engages in routine philanthropic activities, and has press releases to match, and the expectedtributes given to anyone who gives money. . DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that previous AFD closed as Keep in 2015.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- promo content on a non notable subject. The amount of red links is alarming :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable director of a family foundation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non notable person who apparently does some good work but nothing that rises to be more than of a passing or local interest and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I'm not seeing anything at all for example establishing her own notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Numerous sources can be found here including an interview here and in-depth here and in-depth here and getting several paragraphs and a photo in the NY Times and major coverage here and being a keynote speaker here and coverage in Public Radio here so did any of you people, like, do any research before posting Delete? Hmmmmm? Or is it more the case that you don't like her, or don't like philanthropists, don't like rich people, or just think Wikipedia has too many articles in it? I'm curious.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The coverage does not appear to be substantial -- i.e. these are interviews and other trivial mentions. For example, the NPR interview is: "Morgridge spoke with Aspen Public Radio’s Elise Thatcher about whether it’s easier to say all donations are helpful when it’s possible to give millions of dollars". The subject of Carrie Morgridge is not covered in depth. If Morgridge Family Foundation was a notable organisation, I would say "Redirect" there, but for now it appears that neither Ms Morgridge nor the foundation are worthy of note to be included in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, however, that the article is sourced ot in-depth coverage of her childhood, young adulthood in articles that ran in the Denver Post, and a couple of other places.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nominator, head of a foundation that gets the required press releases and trivial mentions. VViking_TalkEdits 13:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• But these are not mere echoed press releases, They are feature stories and news stories. And they are can by no means uniformly be characterized as "trivial."E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because sources exist to pass WP:GNG; New York Times; :[1]; Reuters: [2]; Aspen Public Radio: [3]; a name check in The Villager:[4]]; and CBS-News Miama because, yes, she and her husband gave money to the MiamiDade school system, [5]. Does she get covered because she is a rich philanthropist? Yes; Here's her book on a Wall Street Journal list of the 10 best beach reads for rich people: [6]; the Denver Post covers her intensively [7], and she gets covered incessantly [8]. Bottom line: she's rich (her husband is rich, the parents are rich) and they give away a lot of money. so interviews happen and article are written. But here's the thing: once the articles are published in mainstream sources, we consider the subject notable. I may have an aversion to Paris Hilton and to Keeping Up with the Kardashians, others appear to have an aversion to rich philanthropists who give interviews. But our personal preferences are not the metric of notability. The metric is RS coverage that is substantive and extensive; she has it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It astounds me how often philanthropists are dismissed in AfD discussions as people who "throw" money at causes. Philanthropic work is more than throwing money at causes and being covered for this kind of work is no less important than covering a musician, politician, etc. Philanthropy has, in fact, changed the face of the US, as any librarian would know. Philanthropists like Andrew Carnegie ensured that public libraries were built across the nation. Would anyone say Carnegie was just "throwing money" at a project? This rant aside, there is plenty of good coverage about the subject of the article. She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the extent of the philanthropy. We have probably ten thousand bios claiming philanthropist in the lede sentence and the infobox on the basis or really routine charitable activities of a few thousand dollars. Even a few million dollars is relatively trivial. Endowing one college chair does not make someone a philanthropist. Probably her activities qualify for the title, but comparing her to Carnegie is an example of WP:EINSTEIN. Carnegie was one of the three richest people in the world in his time a/c List of wealthiest historical figures (modern equivalent $300 billion or 5 times Bill Gates) and he eventually donated about 90% of it, and essentially invented modern philanthropy. What's more, like Gates and unlike Morgridge, he made the money himself. He didn't just spend it. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't depend on the "extent of the philanthropy", it depends on media coverage. Wikipedia's guideline reads People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources...; the guideline does not say "Let's rely on DGG or Tomwsulcer or any other Wikipedian to decide which philanthropists are notable". And Morgridge is clearly notable based on numerous sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tomwsulcer. Notability does not "depend on the extent of the philanthropy..." The extent of the Olympic career... The extent of the acting career... Or on the EXTENT of ANY career as a metric. (except, of course, insofar as longer careers attract more RS attention). Notability depends on the extent of reliable coverage of any career. We make no private exception for philanthropists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, the length of an Olympic career is irrelevant, because anyone who ever appeared in even one has been considered notable here. One RS for verification is enough. The other SNGs sometimes extend, sometimes restrict. I do agree that extensive coverage of anything can produce notability --subject to the limits at NOT NEWS and BLP1E. The way that in practice we make these two views compatible is to adjust the interpretation what we consider "substantial" "independent" and " reliable". In any borderline case I can argue it either way on that basis, and most of the discussions at AfD relating to notability are disagreements about just such interpretations. In this case, promotional sources are not truly independent and do not prove notability.

I also point out the AfD is not only about notability , but about any of the reasons in WP:NOT (which., unlike notability is policy). I would not have nominated this article on notability grounds alone, but on the combination of borderline notability with promotionalism . I consider that, and many AfDs have also, as an equally good reason thanc lear lack of notability . Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. In this case I have decided not to withdraw the AfD-- the2 decent sources do not counterbalance the promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? "Promotionalism"? There's nothing being promoted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - My rule-of-thumb measure for WP:GNG is whether the article is about a subject which is the main focus of at least two substantial, reliable and notable independent sources. While I also have concerns about the fawning nature of some of the sources, that's my own problem rather than an issue with the individual at hand or any Wikipedia policy. So as the Reuters and Denver Post articles meet those criteria comfortably, I'd suggest that we should keep this. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Denver Post article is discusses the subject's life (I can't really say that it's "in depth", as this is fluff piece) but it's a local paper; Ms Morgridge is a figure of local significance, so it's expected that she'd be covered there. Reuters is an interview; the subject is talking about herself. There's no independent inquiry. Separately, Ms Morgridge is not a philanthropist; she managers a charitable foundation set up by her father-in-law (he's the philanthropist in this case). She's business manager and she wrote a book; most of the coverage seems to be stemming from the book promotion. I thus confirm my "Delete" vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Puh-leeze. The Denver Post is a "local" paper? It has 400,000+ weekday circulation. It is one of the top 12 newspapers in the United States. And, of course Morgridge is a philanthropist; her philanthropy does not depend on the money's source but on giving it away -- which she does bigtime. She could have spent money on yachts, excursions, shoes if she had Imelda Marcos tendencies, but she didn't -- it is a full time profession, requiring lots of work and energy and traveling and speeches -- and she's good at it, which is why the media covers her in-depth.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Post is a major metropolitan and regional daily. Some major regional dailies have a series of suburban, small city, and metro editions. Coverage in such sections can be regarded as "local." But coverage in the "regular" paper is coverage in a major media outlet. It is also important to note that we are not discussing a single story, but,rather the fact that over the course of several years her activities have bee covered regularly, and in some of stories details of her personal life have been covered.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to the extent of the philanthropy, it's interesting that the article presented Ms Morgridge as personally donating the money; please see the diff for my adjustments. For example:

• From "As vice-president of the Morgridge Family Foundation, her charitable contributions have been in the tens of millions of dollars..." to "She is vice-president of the Morgridge Family Foundation, funded by an annual grant from John P. and Tashia Morgridge’s TOSA Foundation. The foundation's contributions have been in the tens of millions of dollars..."
• "She gave $10 million to the University of Denver..." to "The foundation gave $10 million to the University of Denver..."

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Wording doesn't matter. She's a major player in the foundation, deciding where the $$$ goes, how much, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, that precisely means she is not independently notable of the organization. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that In fact, in the U.S. major donations are overwhelmingly made by Foundations, and a great many of these foundations are wholly controlled by individuals or families. There is a segue such taht some large, enduring Foundations become wholly independent of the founding family, but in general, this is simply the way charity is done. For may reasons. Note, just for example, that The Clinton family has just announced that they will actively transition the Clinton Foundation form family control to the control of an independent Board of Directors if Clinton wins in November. At present, Clinton Foundation, like Mordridge, is run the usual way family foundations are run - by the family.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on the article a bit, and I'm coming to a conclusion that the article could be moved to Morgridge Family Foundation with perhaps a section on Ms Morgridge as the public face of the foundation. The biggest section in the article is about the foundation. It is also discussed in the lead. The subject does not appear to be independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose person X works for organization Y. There is plenty of media coverage for both. Both X and Y meet the general notability guideline. There is no Wikipedia policy that I know of saying that X must be moved into Y because of the connection. Policy suggests, then, that there should be articles on both.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I still think that the coverage - that it may be fawning is not relevant - makes CM notable, it is the case that she probably only scrapes in at the minimum levels that we require and that an article on the foundation might be of more use and interest. We should keep the article for now, but I can see how this course of action could occur after the AfD, though I think given the AfD it would have to go through the proposed moves process. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- On second thoughts, I'm not convinced that the Morgridge Family Foundation (MFF) is that notable. I looked at the article for the father-in-law, John Morgridge (whose foundation funds the MFF), and he donated $50M to the Morgridge Institute for Research, and $175M to the Fund for Wisconsin Scholars (of his own money, I might add). The fact that the MFF donated "tens of millions" over eight years does not seem that significant in comparison. The coverage is mostly "trivial mentions" pertaining to the donations that the foundation made, without in-depth coverage of the foundation itself. So I take back what I said about the MFF. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are plenty of secondary sources to establish her notability -- I have seen as few as two as being sufficient and there are many more than that. Anything else is personal opinion. Ngriffeth (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, there are reviews of Morgridge's co-authored book Every Gift Matters by Publishers Weekly - "While Morgridge’s philanthropy far exceeds what most individuals can afford, she persuasively argues that donating wisely at any level can bring about big change. Readers will find her astute guidance a valuable tool in choosing where to give."[9], and Midwest Book Review - "An extraordinary and highly recommended addition to both community and academic library collections"[10]; it won a 2016 Next Generation Indie Book Award for General Non-fiction[11], a 2016 Independent Book Publishers Association Benjamin Franklin Award silver winner in the Political/Current Events category[12], and appeared on the 2015 JP Morgan reading list - "If you're trying to get in the mindset of business leaders, entrepreneurs and the big-wigs this summer, consider sifting through JPMorgan's summer reading list. The banking giant released its annual 2015 list on Monday, curating 10 titles aimed at its wealthy clientele."[13], so it meets WP:NBOOK (and could have its own article:)), also with this Morgridge arguably meets point 3 of WP:NAUTHOR and point 1 of WP:ANYBIO, with the article references (some but not all may be deemed trivial) she meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG so is a keep.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2016 (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.