Talk:Rhys Morgan

British English

Shouldn't the article reflect the fact that the subject is British? E.g. "dialogue" not "dialog". I am willing to start wikignoming, but not if it's all going to be changed back. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...not sure. Interesting question. Let me "cheque" on that (nyuk nyuk). Might be something relevant here in WP:SPELLING. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

British person, British spelling, is my reading of our Manual of Style. Unless there are serious objections in the next 12 hours, I'm going for "dialogue" etc. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. Same thing with dates and unit of measure, format them to match the subject. Krelnik (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean today is 3 December 2011, and not December 3, 2011? BrainyBabe (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Krelnik (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Year of Birth and Photo

Posting here to hopefully avoid any sort of conflict of interest problems. My year of birth is 1994. Thewelshboyo (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed, not by me. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting that Mr. Morgan; I had to take my best guess. If there are any public-domain pictures that you would like to provide, I would be happy to include them in the article. BTW, the COI policy here allows you to participate in this discussion and correct any obvious errors, usually best left to other editors to perform on your behalf. You're on solid grounds with respect to policy; no worries. Cheers Boyo and thanks for dropping by. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for pointing that out. You can use my Twitter profile picture if you want. That's one I've taken myself. If you don't think that's suitable, just let me know! Thewelshboyo (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Done! Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Need anything else - just let me know :) Thewelshboyo (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is unlikely to be sufficient, firstly not explicit that Rhys Morgan has consented to the licensing the image cc 3.0, and also as he is under 18, it would need to be clear that he can in fact so do. Mtking ^(edits) 00:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Kindly refer me to the WP policy that refers to a mandatory age for copyright permission sign off. Thanks in advance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly if someone is entering into a binding licencing agreement, they must be of the legal age to do it, that is common scene. As we know the subject is under 18 we should make sure that he is able to. Mtking ^(edits) 01:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You have a point in wanting an explicit statement from Rhys re licensing. As regards whether he can give permission, note that at the foot of every page, when in edit mode, it states "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." This means any contribution, not just images. If one is to require that someone is over 18 (or whatever) to submit content, then one is effectively banning under-18s from editing by themselves.--A bit iffy (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm the owner of the photo of Rhys and James Randi (official photographer of TAM London 2010 as you'll see from Martin's Guardian blog). I have changed the Creative Commons and added my name to this. Thanks, Kelly. KHaddow (talk • contribs) 10:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Verifying permission

Hi. Mtking asked me to stop by to see if I can help straighten out permission here. :)

With regards to File:RhysMorgan2.jpeg, can somebody provide us with a link to an official source that confirms that [1] is licensed under Creative Commons? There are two relatively easy ways to do this. First, it can be placed in the profile at <http://twitter.com/rhysmorgan>. Second, it could be placed here: <http://rhysmorgan.co/>. A statement like this would take care of it: "This image is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License." If the text is placed at the blog, since the image is not displayed, it would be necessary to link to the image as well, either at Twitter or on Wikipedia. (Mtking, we do routinely accept licensing statements from underage contributors. While some jurisdictions allow minors to later revoke licensing agreements, not all do, and WMF has not yet decided to take any actions to restrict participation on that basis.)

With respect to File:RhysMorgan1.png, that one will be a bit more difficult. Since the image was published, we need to be able to verify that the release is authorized. The best way to proceed will almost certainly be for you to send a letter verifying permission to the Wikimedia Foundation, Kelly. Do you have an official website, Kelly? If not, we may be able to ask Martin Robbins (who I see does have his own website at <http://www.mjrobbins.net/>) to help out. It's kind of a pain in the neck sometimes jumping through these hoops, but since copyright is a legal matter, we do need to make sure that the red tape is all properly processed. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC) my official website is <http://www.kemaha.co.uk>. I have sent an email to Wiki to cover this as well. Looks like this has been verified and the image is now not up for deletion. --[[User:KHaddow| KHaddow] ^(talk) 15.57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Quibble

"Subsequently, The Guardian gave Morgan a featured column". This sounds like a permanent thing, a once a week opportunity, like e.g. Ben Goldacre (who FWIW called Rhys a "well-mannered teen prodigy") and his "Bad Science". Instead, Rhys's column was a one-off in the Guardian's collection of blogs called Comment is Free, where some writers are regulars and some are one-timers. How to phrase this? BrainyBabe (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I would just say "Subsequently, Morgan has written articles for The Guardian". That's demonstrably true, while still being a notable comment (most people don't write columns in The Guardian full stop, after all). --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

But "articles" isn't accurate. CiF pieces are not really articles but opinion pieces, and anyway RH has only written one of them, which was my original point. (He has appeared in multiple articles, but that is an entirely different matter.) BrainyBabe (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. How about "The Guardian featured a column written by Morgan" or something along those lines. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I like that Goldacre quote. That should be included, as should recognition/praise from any other notable people in the field. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wording: I suggest - "The Guardian's Comment is Free section featured an opinion piece written by Morgan." BrainyBabe (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Quotes re subject

I looked up the Ben Goldacre quote, as requested. It's from Twitter; I had the impression that wasn't WP:RS, but I leave that to others to decide. "well-mannered teen prodigy @rhysmorgan wins the internet #burzynski" 30 Nov. The only thing I have omitted from that tweet is a compressed link that Wikipedia software objects to. It expands to RH's CiF piece, which appeared that day: "The Burzynski Clinic is using libel laws to silence critics of its cancer treatment". Goldacre's tweet is here. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a Twitter feed will do the trick, but perhaps Goldacre will have more to say in the future. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

BG is well aware of RM, and featured him in a Bad Science column on 4 June 2011: Kids who spot bullshit, and the adults who get upset about it. Unfortunately, I can't find one pithy quote to extract from that piece. BTW Simon Singh, who was sued for his science journalism, may also have something to say about RM. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion process

I have opened up an urgent review of the decision not to delete this article doktorb _words^deeds 01:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, that ended up with a speedy keep. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

British Medical Journal

A new article on Morgan was just published today in BMJ[2] -- that's a big deal. Access to the full-text version is $30. Does anyone here have free academic access to BMJ? If so, a good summary of the article would be nice to include in Morgan's bio. For now, I'm going to include the article in the external links section, but it should be removed after the article it is woven into the main bio. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Beat me to it! The page-long news article is entitled "Texan clinic threatens UK bloggers with legal action over criticisms of its treatments". It mentions Morgan, but is, as the title suggests, about the clinic, and should certainly be cited there. I'll see what I can do to include snippets here. Mainly it just quotes the bloggers' material, the threatening emails, and the clinic press release, with quotes from Mr Quackometer, Simon Singh, and Cancer Research UK. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hah, early bird catches the worm! That would be great if you could have a look and share with us. If there's nothing particularly novel in the article, we could just mention and cite BMJ in the sentence that now reads "...as reporters from Discover Magazine,[8] Houston Press,[7] and The Guardian[6] covered the story...". Keep up the great work. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done a bit more than that; see what you think. (Also added to Burzynski article, which needs to have its lede updated.) Thanks for the kind words. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:RhysMorgan2.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:RhysMorgan2.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Article Issues

There appears to be a number of issues with this article, there are lots of peacock terms " who first received acclaim", "received media attention and acclaim" it also appears to have issues with its WP:POV that need to be addressed.Mtking ^(edits) 00:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Clairvoyants generally don't frequent the pages of scientific skeptics, so perhaps you'd care to outline the POV problems and "many" other issues you alluded to so that they can be looked into and corrected if need be. Fair enough? BTW, what do you find offensive about seemingly neutral words like "attention" and "acclaim", given that they are used in proper context, and what would you suggest as a suitable alternative? Let's keep the comments constructive and focused on improving the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This article looks like a puff piece, written to promote and puff out the subject and his causes, I don't think it is written is a neutral way. Mtking ^(edits) 00:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you want to play the driveby tag revert game with me now.[3] Please read WP:TAGGING and follow it. I'm sensing a disruptive tendency given some of the other edits you made today (tagging both of the subject's images for deletion), [4][5] coincidentally after another editor launched a ridiculous attempt to get the article deleted[6] on the basis of non-notability and had to be warned[7] because he was making legal threats against the subject of this bio. The sober-minded thing to do would be walk away and let this cool off. We might have to bring this to the attention of the admins because I don't like what I'm seeing here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*2 Sorry but that is only an essay (not guidelines or policies) and as anyone can right one, and they can and are written to support ANY action on here it does not carry any weight, you will notice that I have reported this page to the NPOV board, there are genuine copyright issues with both of the images. Mtking ^(edits) 01:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

So rather than simply using the talk page to explain the problems as you perceive them, you've chosen to escalate by taking it to the POV board? That M.O. seems strangely akin to that of Doktorbuk. Seems like you picked up his torch not 3 hours after it was extinguished. I'll say it again, I don't like what I'm seeing here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Because you clearly have ownership issues with this article it is best to bring in other editors that are experienced in assessing it. You also show a tendency to assume bad faith, for example your tendency to link to WP:DE in your edit sums, your (all be it now removed) comment that I was "Fibbing" about the NPOV board, clearly shows you did not do any due diligence and assumed bad faith on my part. Mtking ^(edits) 01:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone please take a deep breath. Hold it. Now release. This discussion is supposed to be about the Rhys Morgan article. Mtking can you identify any other phrases other than the two uses of "acclaim" that should be removed to address the issues with the article? Please be specific and we will gladly set about making changes to bring this article into compliance. Krelnik (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I too am interested in making this article as good as possible. I think I've come to the end of my editing energy today, but rest assured I will be back. Whatever specific things need to be improved, will be, as long as we all focus on the article. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

<- I've just read the article. It actually seems pretty good to me. It certainly doesn't deserve tagging. The subject did receive acclaim and praise for his efforts. My only slight concern really is with the lead. If the article is going to use words like acclaim, praise, "a hailstorm of criticism" etc, they should really be sourced to secondary sources that talk about it at this meta-level rather than editors acting in good faith trying to sum up a number of sources they've read in a soundbite. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sean, both for dropping by -- fresh eyes always welcome -- and for your positive words. I can't see a huge amount to change. I take your point about secondary sources, but there aren't likely to be any, not immediately. Perhaps Ben Goldacre or Simon Singh will mention RM, in the context of MMS or Burzynski, in their next book. I will leave the photos and rights issues to others to sort out.

My criticism, if any, would be that the lede is too heavy. Ten references! Better to move them all, and (say) half the bulk of the material, to the relevant sections. Comments? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Chop away BB. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've read the article, too, and strongly disagree with the OP that is is a "puff piece" and POV promotion. Quite the opposite. The only thing I'd change is "hailstorm of criticism", which is a bit too pop-jounalistic. Otherwise, the article is well-written, well-sources, relevant and on topic. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

How about "salvo"..."fusillade"? Just kidding...maybe. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Isn't it a bit early for DYK? The entries above suggest there is at least one editor who wants significant changes, and they will have to be discussed. Also, the images need copyright clearance. When it does go, I'd appreciate being listed as a contributor an expander. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the issue is the DYK rules require a nomination within 5 days of the article being created or significantly expanded. It may take quite a few more days for it to be processed, and one would hope we can clean up these issues by then. I think we can. Think of it as an incentive/deadline to get the article cleaned up and ready for the world. Krelnik (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but we're not near five days yet. It's great to thrash out the hook here, in advance. I'd go for ALT1. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Very nice to see that DYK nom. ALT1 seems a bit more timely. I fully support Brainy being credited for her excellent work, and anyone else that might have made significant contributions as well. It's been a great team effort all around; the best community collaboration I have seen on WP in my 5 years of editing. Hats off to all. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Inbound links

There are a few references to another Rhys Morgan who is a rugby union player which were incorrectly linking to this page. I have cleaned those up and redirected his links to the correct page. Allecher (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Education

Just to let you know, I'm no longer studying at Cardiff High School. I'm doing a BSc (Hons) in Health Sciences with the Open University. Thewelshboyo (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. As for changing the article, we'd really need a published reliable source to add that - though I suppose logic and basic maths suggests that at your age you'd be leaving school anyway. I'll see if I can tweak the wording a little to indicate you are no longer at school, at least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Although, I've left a year early due to illness and the like. But yes, understand the need for WP:RS! Thewelshboyo (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Rhys' personal blog might suffice in this case. Self-published sources from the subject of the bio are usually permissible. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

So, something a bit like this? http://rhysmorgan.co/general-life-updates/ Thewelshboyo (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that'll do - per WP:SELFSOURCE it isn't "unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" as far as I can see. I'll alter the article accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Authors' Conflicts of Interest?

I have major concerns regarding the integrity of this article. Contributors here are known personal friends of his: xxxxx One or more of the cited articles is written by xxxxx. (For example, xxxxxx) Zoara2010 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. And stop wasting other people's time with nonsense. This isn't a blog. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have would like to raise a finger of complaint regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself_and_people_you_know

You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or your close friends. If you or they are notable enough, someone else will create the article. You should also not write about people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life.

An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be fixed quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons.

Personal friends of Rhys Morgan include, xxxxx I see no conflict of interest declaration

Could you very kindly direct me to the COI noticeboard? Do I make a posting to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COIN? Forgive me, I am new to this and not very good with computers.

--77.101.64.218 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Follow Andy's advice - read the articles he linked to, in full --Zoara2010 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is the correct place to raise genuineissues concerning conflicts of interest - however, there has been nothing raised here that indicates any such issue, and I suggest that people stop wasting our time with nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump. The conflict of interest claims going on here seem way overblown.Dustinlull (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A warning is in order. Posting off-site attack pages and outing users are both serious violations of WP policy. I'm editing the offending material from the posts. This is a serious blockable offense. Please read WP guidelines in dealing with suspected COI issues discretely. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

AS Level results

His AS-Level results seem to be a glaring omission, given that he is a purported "science activist". ( see https://twitter.com/rhysmorgan/statuses/236016601269420033) --Zoara2010 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

He attended Cardiff High School, where he studied mathematics, chemistry, biology and psychology at AS level, [4][6] before going on to study for a BSc (Hons) in Health Sciences with the Open University.

Why mention AS Levels at all; the qualifications were not apparently gained, so it seems misleading to omit this. --Zoara2010 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The material reported is factual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Simple as that. Sorry, I didn't understand that's how Wikipedia worked. --Zoara2010 (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Consumer Watchdog?

Rhys Morgan (born 1994) is a consumer watchdog, science activist, and health blogger

It appears that his father is a doctor. Is it conceivable that he has been put on a pedestal by him. Is it conceivable that it was he who advised him not to drink the bleach. The entire premise of this entry is unconvincing. How does talking on a podcast make one a watchdog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoara2010 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wilikedia doesn't give a toss what you think is 'conceivable'. We go by published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump. The article is supported by valid sources.Dustinlull (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Citation #20 doesn't work

This link does not seem to lead anywhere. Should it be deleted?

Ep.67 – Rhys Morgan" , Righteous Indignation, 4 October 2010, retrieved 3 December 2011

--Zoara2010 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Link rot: "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." I'll mark it as a broken link, and look into it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I stand corrected. --Zoara2010 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Serious deletion proposal

It is 2016 and the popularity of this person is debatable. The page has already been proposed for speedy deletion, and received massive approval for speed keep. I argue the approval was due to the poor arguments offered by the editor who proposed deletion. I did my own research of Wikipedia's guidelines, and argue this person is, at best, low-profile. My rationale follows:

• Sparse appearance: Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a limited group, such as a professional or religious organization, or a local sporting, fundraising or activism event. May have fulfilled non-self-promotional functions based on experience or special knowledge, such as being an expert witness in a legal case. May have authored non-self-promotional publications, such as books or refereed journal articles on scientific, technical, historical, etc., topics. (Source: Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual ). My rationale: this person is no more famous than any witness in any trial. The only difference is that he received occasional media attention because of his activity. Given the randomness by which Main Stream Media choose to follow a story and pay attention to it is due to profit and marketing reasons and not because the person is encyclopaedic. Media attention might be evidence of being encyclopedic but does not entail the property of being encyclopedic (i.e. media attention is not sufficient alone to give this person a page). Conclusion: low-profile at best.
• Lack of eminence: Does not use occupational or other position(s) for public projection of self-worth (above the level normally expected within the field in question – academia, like business and politics, can be quite competitive). Such a person may be notable anyway yet still low-profile (e.g., if generally acknowledged to be a preeminent authority in a particular field, or a CEO of a notable but not market-dominant company, etc., but not particularly self-promotional). (Source: Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual ). My rationale: This person is a blog activist who got a couple of successes unmasking hoaxes. Given media attention is clue but not proof of encyclopedic notability (see point above), I would expect this person to have overperformed in the field of activism and science blogging. Guess what? He never performed above the normal activity in his field. Example: My lawyer has a blog, won a lot of trials because he is good at his job, and got featured in a couple of documentaries on being lawyers in my hometown. Yes, he got relevant media attention; yes, he has an internet profile that is quite active; yes, my lawyer was successful in his job. But he is not by any means performing above the expected level of the field in question). Conclusion: low-profile at best.
• Believe it or not, in this day and age his actions are merely local even if his voice occasionally crossed the pond between UK and US. As stated in Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual, a high profile individual is required to stand "above locally-significant relevance". I understand some editors might misunderstand international activity for "above-local significance", but in nowadays globalized society, for a blogger and activist to be involved in a campaign in North America is not local. It is an average day. Proof of this is the fact the guy, hadn't had media attention, wouldn't even be here. I argue Wikipedians shall not buy everything Main Stream Media try to sell us as if it was automatically encyclopedic, much in the same way you will not put a product on Wikipedia just because it has been showcased in most of your country's supermarkets. Editors have been misled by BBC into thinking this person is relevant. But the question still stands: without being invited to tell his story to the radio and a TV show, would this person be relevant in his field just because of his actions (and not because of the manufactured shows around him)? I argue we shall all answer "no" to this question. His fame is contingent to media attention and media attention is built on foggy grounds. Conclusion: low profile.
• Low level of activity: may have attempted to maintain a high profile unsuccessfully in the past, or successfully for a limited time (and may be notable as a result of either), but has demonstrated a consistent pattern of low-profile activity since then. Often allegedly notable only for a minor role in one major event, or for a recurring major role in a series of minor events. My rationale: he has been involved in two cases of debunking. Fair enough. There are anti-hoax bloggers and websites that are involved in debunking on a daily basis and are notable for their persistent and continuous activity. I argue this person has never been high profile. But even if I admitted he was high profile, it would be only for a couple of episodes. In at least one of those episodes, he was high profile in conjunction with other people... so that he would just receive a mention (maybe a line) in the event's page, but not get a page of his own overall. Conclusion: When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#People_notable_for_only_one_event

Let me recap, for the sake of briefness. This person has:

1. Sparse appearance in the media (mostly 2011 -- see article sources)
2. Not eminent (not performing above expectations in his field of interest)
3. Only locally famous and linked to only a couple of events, and groups. He is not even niche (no: the fact he had an interest in the US medical affairs for a brief period does not make him less 'local')
4. Low level of activity: famous only for one event (namely, the first one). Article lists a second event, but it is pretty clear, as explained in the very article, that in such second event he was one among the many bloggers involved and was featured in a newspaper and asked for his opinion on the matter. I am sorry he received threats because of that, but this might make you famous for a day, but not notable in any Encyclopaedia. His relevance in the second event is minimal and collective. Not individual. Since then, nobody but his subscribers have heard of him.

When you browse an article like this and you see a lot of issues about its existence, accuracy, relevance, etc... and you wonder: how can I make this article better? Why does this article has so many problem? In this case, the answer is not "more work needs to be done here" but rather this article shouldn't be here in first place. I am regretful to notice that the previous editor who proposed this article for speedy deletion was not informed enough to be able to propose arguments such as mine, which clearly derailed the deletion process. Moreover, speed deletion was proposed back in the days. Nowadays, where is this person's activity record? Nowhere to be found. Of course I can Google something because he's on the Internet. But encyclopedic? Not at all. Everybody voted for SpeedyKeep because he was on the news at the time in which the page was created. 5 years have passed, and this person is utterly non-encyclopaedic. MarcelloPapirio (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I have removed your PROD tag as PROD must not be used for articles that have already been discussed in an AfD. You are allowed however to start a new AfD for this article. Given the outcome of the first AfD, that might not be a very good idea. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. My Wikipedia bureaucracy is very outdated and my presence on the English page is more recent than my Wikipedia activity. Unfortunately, whay you said deeply concerns me about the viability of the procedure. As you said: "Given previous result...". I frankly hope we are not naive inductivists and we are aware previous results are not evidence of future results. In particular, I noticed that these kind of biographical pages have a surge of activity when the occasional kid gets media attention because of an incident of some sorts; his buddies make him a Wikipedia page and then they flood the voting page when some old user proposes the deletion. I am surprised Morgan Rhys is regarded as notable for the purpose of biography and Ahmed Mohamed gets an incident page rather than a bio page Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident. These idiosyncrasies and inconsistencies are what make Wikipedia (and particularly the English one) prey of the Media, who create relevance out of smoke and people who are indoctrinated by the TV attach a different importance to things only on the basis of them being featured on Main Stream Media. But thank you very much for your help, I will definitely contribute to an AfD and am saddened by the fact that there is always a barrier to take substantial action, which is the reason I contribute even less to Wikipedia. The sheer fact we have to take time and words to discuss these menial things should be regarded as a clue that we take more words to defend our contributions in face of the community than to actually make relevant contribution. Nothing personal though. I would love to escalate this issue, but all things considered I suspect I am not the first one to bring this up. MarcelloPapirio (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I am one of the original contributors. I will note a couple of things: that "popularity" is never the point of a WP article, biography or not; and that "local" has now acquired such a wide meaning that I no longer know what anyone means by it. Rhys Morgan acquired national attention, and (from what I remember, and on re-reading the article) achieved national effects, in that councils all over Britain had to tighten up their trading standards re MMS. Texas is another saga. I will go back and see if I can offer any constructive improvements to the article. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)