Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys Morgan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:31, 2 December 2011

Rhys Morgan

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

Very sophisticated hoax, or highly contrived non notable joke. In any case, this person and the creation of his article is a highly dubious 'notable' person whose place in Wikipedia is questionable at best. Not notable, potential hoax, potential 'what we made up in school' jape. The edit summaries suggest this is a joke article or the result of some kind of 'dare'. Not a known figure in the United Kingdom. Not a successful household name. Not notable in his field. doktorb _words^deeds 11:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

KEEP. I can verify that this is no hoax, and I would bet a year's worth of my edits that nothing to date in this article has been touched by anyone at a UK school. Since when did anyone have to be a household name to appear in any encyclopedia? The subject has made his mark in the field of advocacy about science and health claims. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The references and material in the public domain speak for themselves. This is neither a hoax nor a joke and after being involved in two separate significant and public incidences of questioning what appears to be pseudo-science I would say the notability criteria is also met. Jjasi (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This is not a hoax or a joke. Rhys Morgan has been featured on television, and has (quickly, admittedly) become really quite well-known within the sceptic community. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a hoax. Generally The Guardian, BBC News Online and so on don't tend to print "stuff we made up in school" stories. Morgan has appeared on TV on The One Show - see this YouTube video. (Perhaps a bit of WP:BEFORE, next time?) —Tom Morris (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the notability claim? WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here. The article satisfies W:GNG: just look at the references! WP:AUTHOR might apply, in which case Morgan satisfies the first criteria (widely cited by peers in the skeptical community, somewhat cited by the mainstream press). Mentions in the press are not passing mentions either. Clearly passes the relevant notability tests which is significantly lower than being a "household name" (a standard which would require us to remove biographical articles on virtually every scientist, academic, writer, philosopher and so on). —Tom Morris (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Recent article in his own right at Guardian.co.uk, the website of The Guardian further evidence that Rhys is, if anything, becoming more notable. Also, though I am unsure that it should be part of the notability criteria, his youth could be considered a positive in terms of impact. Faragher (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Seriously. Even a cursory amount of research would verify the references and his notability in the field of debunking quack medicine. Queex (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - per above Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 13:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP.OK, so Rhys may not be an A-list celebrity, but he is very well known among skeptic circles. Bear in mind that he's appeared on BBC TV's "The One Show" and recently wrote an article for the Guardian. Rhys does great work in exposing quack medicine, and deserves to be even better known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamJacobs (talk • contribs) 13:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'KEEP He's definitely notable.--Crgn (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Notable. An unusual figure in the world of critical thinking, one of the youngest in his field - extremely active and involved. This will be the start of a long history of this character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyfrieze (talk • contribs) 13:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP definitely a real and notable figure, and becoming more so. --Funkodrom 13:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please. Rhys is real and I cannot understand the motivation for claiming he is a hoax.

Basket Press (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC). Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Basket Press (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Keep and probably WP:SNOW. The entire article has numerous sourced references, including the South Wales Echo, the BBC and the Guardian, which give it clear notability. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator should have done a small amount of research first before suggesting this is a hoax, because there are many independent sources - detailed above, and others - that clearly indicate Morgan and his activities are genuine.--A bit iffy (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Morgan and the account of his significant activities are no hoax - I have communicated with him occasionally and followed his activities for a year. The article is accurate and this teenager is already notable for his efforts to expose medical fads that are not based on evidence but are promoted to make money for their sellers. Argey (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP If Rhys Morgan is a hoax, then the Guardian, the BBC, his school, Richard Dawkins, Simon Singh and numerous others who have met, interviewed and awarded Rhys over the last couple of years have been taken in too. He's certainly notable. Digitaltoast (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Digitaltost (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Note for Administrator Many users here, including DigitalToast, have no edits other than votes here. I suspect they are single-purpose accounts created to skew the deletion discussion process and as such should be discounted when making your final decision. doktorb _words^deeds 15:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to point out that I am not particularly concerned about whether this is a hoax or not. The fact that Morgan has been referred to in numerous national newspapers, and appeared on national television, and appears to continue to do so, irrespective of whatever anyone's opinion is on his research, tips the article in the direction of notable for me. Also, since an AfD discussion is based on consensus rather than votes (personally, it was Tom Morris' comments that I found the most convincing), it is unlikely that any wave of single-purpose accounts would affect the overall decision. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doktorb will have noted that I joined Wikipedia on Sep 15, 2006 at 2:45 PM. Is he seriously suggesting that I joined over 5 years ago in order to vote on an article from the future? Why did Doktorb not click ANY of the 8 referenced links to Rhys Morgan or use Google? Why, on his talk page, has Doktorb not answered my question which was "Can you please declare any interest you may have in the alt-med industry?"? His actions, repeated use of certain words, bizarre explanations for deletion and avoidance of question relating to involvement with the alt-med industry should arouse great suspicion. Digitaltoast (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to your contributions list, the only contributions you have made are today. Therefore Doktorb was within his rights to be suspicious of you being a single purpose account. --Ritchie333 (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He has received significant press coverage from multiple sources on more than one occasion, he has received a significant award in recognition of his contributions in the field of science activism, he's been acknowledged by notable figures in his field (James Randi and Richard Dawkins among others), and wrote a column in The Guardian -- and he's done it all by the age of 17, making him somewhat of a Doogie Howser-like wunderkind (and the public seems to love him for it). He easily satisfies notability requirements WP:BIO IMO. Suggesting that I created this article as a joke or dare (and basing that accusation on my edit summaries) is way, way off-base. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - When a nomination calls a challenged page a "Very sophisticated hoax, or highly contrived non notable joke" and when the footnotes include a link to BBC NEWS-WALES, it's time to shut the sucker down as either a bad faith nomination or an incompetent nomination. Then we've got "Not a known figure in the United Kingdom. Not a successful household name. Not notable in his field." Yeah, just throw shit against the wall and see if something sticks. That one source tops this shitty nomination, snow this shut and let's move on. Carrite (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment I note that Wikipedia is very strict on people having articles who are famous for just one thing. This person is not "famous" and is only notable for one act. This too should be taken into account. I have no connection with the alt-med industry at all. DigitalToast has not made any edits prior to this vote, by the way. I am highly dubious about an article which just appeared out of nowhere in its current form about a "wunderkid". doktorb _words^deeds 18:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP At the young age of 17 Rhys Morgan has made significant contributions to public awareness of the dangers of unsubstantiated medicines and medical claims. He has advocated successfully for persons who would have been at risk for substantial physical harm had they followed a dangerously toxic regimen in a misguided effort to treat various symptoms. He now has an international profile in the wake of his positive endeavors and as such is certainly deserving of note in Wikipedia. Disparaging comments are most likely from parties who are at risk of a loss of revenue from Rhys' very fair, logical, and commonsense approach to verifying medical claims.

Revision as of 18:08, 2 December 2011 edit Doktorbuk (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 21,580 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:31, 2 December 2011 edit undo Pangeo (talk \| contribs) 6 edits →‎Rhys Morgan Next edit →
Line 45:		Line 45:

	*'''Further Comment''' I note that Wikipedia is very strict on people having articles who are famous for just one thing. This person is not "famous" and is only notable for one act. This too should be taken into account. I have no connection with the alt-med industry at all. DigitalToast has not made any edits prior to this vote, by the way. I am highly dubious about an article which just appeared out of nowhere in its current form about a "wunderkid". [[User:Doktorbuk\|doktorb]] <sub>[[User talk:Doktorbuk\|words]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk\|deeds]]</sup> 18:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)		*'''Further Comment''' I note that Wikipedia is very strict on people having articles who are famous for just one thing. This person is not "famous" and is only notable for one act. This too should be taken into account. I have no connection with the alt-med industry at all. DigitalToast has not made any edits prior to this vote, by the way. I am highly dubious about an article which just appeared out of nowhere in its current form about a "wunderkid". [[User:Doktorbuk\|doktorb]] <sub>[[User talk:Doktorbuk\|words]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk\|deeds]]</sup> 18:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

			* '''KEEP''' At the young age of 17 Rhys Morgan has made significant contributions to public awareness of the dangers of unsubstantiated medicines and medical claims. He has advocated successfully for persons who would have been at risk for substantial physical harm had they followed a dangerously toxic regimen in a misguided effort to treat various symptoms. He now has an international profile in the wake of his positive endeavors and as such is certainly deserving of note in Wikipedia. Disparaging comments are most likely from parties who are at risk of a loss of revenue from Rhys' very fair, logical, and commonsense approach to verifying medical claims.