This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
A fact from Jamie Keeton appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 October 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: First hook grabs me from the start. Definitely interesting and everything looks fine. This is the first time I have personally done a QPQ so I'm questioning notability since this is a guy who is only known for being sticky - may need some additional insight before I feel good to pass this off! --Horsegeek(talk) 02:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Horsegeek: Thanks for the review. If you cannot pass this nomination perhaps you can place the red tick so someone else can review it. Bruxton (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good and this nomination is ready for another reviewer! Horsegeek(talk) 20:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that WP:BASIC is met and I don't think it falls under any of the exclusionary criteria (it's a little weird, but so are a few people in the Guinness World Records category). I have re-checked that the criteria are met, including doing a Earwig copyvio check, and have no concerns; the article is new enough, long enough, well-written and all points are cited (I've made some minor tweaks in this respect, hopefully that's all OK). Hooks interesting and cited. Good to go. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton, Chocmilk03, and Horsegeek: Hmm, so I just saw this article appear in the DYK queue, and reading through it, some things struck me as odd:
He claims to have an average body temperature of 100 degrees Fahrenheit – how is that unusal? To cite from Human body temperature#Variations, In adults a review of the literature has found a wider range of 33.2–38.2 °C (91.8–100.8 °F) for normal temperatures, depending on the gender and location measured. So if he has an average or ever-so-slightly-over-average body temperature, is it a notable fact about him? Do we even have anyone to confirm he has that body temperature, or just his personal claim?
He also states that as a result of his skin condition his wounds heal faster than a normal person – is this supposed to mean he has some sort of "healing factor" like a superhuman? The human body is quite complicated, and I doubt you can improve your healing just by using more oxygen.
and that he is stronger than other people – is he though? You can do well at sports and be just an average human without a medical condition. We don't even have independent verification that he is strong, let alone that it has anything to do with his skin.
Keeton's blood type is A negative – how is this relevant information? Do we usually include the blood type of people? Ah, right, according to the source: He thinks it may have something to do with his blood type — A negative — which has been nicknamed the "blood of aliens," a reference to the myth that people with Rh-negative blood descended from extraterrestrials. This is... a nice fantasy. But there's nothing to back this up, and none of the doctors have put forth this explanation. It's his personal opinion, and very likely false.
This isn't about notability (I believe that is fine), but about these strange and rather strong claims which only seem to be backed up by his personal statements. I mean, I could claim to be stronger than most other people because I eat five pounds of spinach per day. But that doesn't mean these claims should necessarily be repeated, if there is no evidence to back them up: That his head is unusally sticky has been confirmed, but that he is stronger, that it has anything to do with his blood type (an absurd claim from a medical point of view), and that he has "super-healing factor" are just his personal claims. He certainly is allowed to make these claims, but we should not repeat them with more evidence that there's at least tentative evidence to support them: And I do not see any indication of that. I should also state that e.g. He claims that because of his skin condition, he can make ten to twenty thousand dollars per weekend from paid appearances is a claim we can certainly include: It's not verified, sure, but there's no reason for me to doubt it.
This may all sound a bit negative, and I don't want to say this article is bad. It's just that this section is a collection of personal convictions of Keeton that are all unverified or extremely unlikely. The article was fun to read, and his condition is interesting; but we still should discern between what he is actually notable for (sticky skin, higher oxygen levels), and what he is not notable for (body temperature, blood type, increased strength, faster healing). –LordPeterII (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For my part I'm easy; when reviewing I was mainly concerned to make sure the article made it clear these were his claims rather than verifiable fact. Some articles do seem to suggest these things are fact (eg [1]) but my sense is that journalists are repeating Keeton's claims without verifying them. I thought these claims were mildly interesting, but I don't have strong enough feelings to express a view on whether they should stay in or not. So if you/others think removal is more appropriate, go right ahead. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the both of you. I think there are points that are highly unlikely and a bit of a stretch but it is a rather interesting article that I'm sure anyone wouldn't mind reading. Thanks for your efforts! Horsegeek(talk) 16:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's fair. I'll just change it to conjunctive ("claims he would" instead of "claims he has") to make it clearer that the claims are unlikely. But you are right, they are attributed and (with these adjustments) may stay. –LordPeterII (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First hook grabs me from the start. Definitely interesting and everything looks fine. This is the first time I have personally done a QPQ so I'm questioning notability since this is a guy who is only known for being sticky - may need some additional insight before I feel good to pass this off! --Horsegeek(talk) 02:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
My view is that WP:BASIC is met and I don't think it falls under any of the exclusionary criteria (it's a little weird, but so are a few people in the Guinness World Records category). I have re-checked that the criteria are met, including doing a Earwig copyvio check, and have no concerns; the article is new enough, long enough, well-written and all points are cited (I've made some minor tweaks in this respect, hopefully that's all OK). Hooks interesting and cited. Good to go. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)