Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys Morgan


 * 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 Speedy keep (non-admin closure) : pace the DRV, it's patently obvious that the nominating editor did not read the article at all (q.v. WP:SK 2.5). Even without the SPAs, there are about 15 editors who have opined the article should be kept, and I cannot see any outcome other than a unanimous keep for this article; even the most ardent pro-BLP editors would most likely agree that the article should be kept. (Incidentally, edit summaries in themselves don't in themselves imply anything; I sometimes use strange edit summaries when making minor edits) Sceptre (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rhys Morgan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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 wordsdeeds 11:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * 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)
 * Regarding the notability claim? WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here. The article satisfies 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Snow keep - per above Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 13:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 'KEEP He's definitely notable.--Crgn (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * KEEP definitely a real and notable figure, and becoming more so. --Funkodrom 13:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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.


 * 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 wordsdeeds 15:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 wordsdeeds 18:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in my keep !vote, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply: the article lists two things he has had significant media coverage over. There are reliable sources for both. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I second that point, and the article did not "appear out of nowhere", whatever that's supposed to mean. It was carefully constructed over the course of many hours yesterday (and since modified today), as you can readily see from the edit history. But since you raised this tenuous point, perhaps you can also refer us to a WP policy that precludes articles that "appear out of nowhere. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding of that comment refers to the guideline of creating a new article under your own user page as a draft, then publishing it once it's had some peer review. --Ritchie333 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That was clearly not done in this case. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:10, 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangeo (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP Rhys is not famous for just one thing, there are plenty of reliable sources in the article. Agree with commenters above that this nomination for deletion was not made in good faith. Krelnik (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also agree that the "appear out of nowhere" comment is nonsense. I consider it fairly standard practice to work up a new article in one's user scratch space, then copy it when it is in usable form. It just avoids a whole host of issues, such as wasting other editors time on reviewing work that isn't 'done' yet. (I do realize this is not what was done here - my point being that considering a suddenly-appearing fully-formed article suspicious in some way is deeply inconsistent with standard practices engaged by most editors) Krelnik (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * At this point the debate was snow closed. A deletion review of the snow closure was entered, and I decided that it would do no harm to follow the process strictly.  Accordingly, I re-opened the debate per WP:BRD.  Please could the debate be allowed to continue for at least 168 hours.— S Marshall  T/C 01:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP. I am not sure if this article was merged with one I created - the text is similar in places (although that could be coincidence). I have edited Wikipedia pages before (and have written a lot of the content of [a medical Wiki). The subject has been prominent in the media regarding at least two incidents, and has been part of the stimulus for what many are calling a Streisand effect. He has published at least one article in a national paper, and had other articles written about him in the national (and probably the international press). How could he not be considered notifiable? --[[User:Penglish|peter_english]] (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - normally we'd discount any attempt at notability in such a young subject, but having The Guardian and other impeccable sources under his belt, Morgan is unquestionably a notable public figure, and it is entirely appropriate that WP has an article on him. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't canvassed: more that I have been following certain events elsewhere on the net and this has been a controversial area with a number of different attacks made on sceptical bloggers; this seemed a little too coincidental.
 * And I have to start somewhere in my Wiki membership...
 * Basket Press (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP - The article's subject is well-covered in the mainstream UK media and good sources are provided to that effect. Particularly notable in the field as well although there's no reason to enter into that argument, since it's clearly not required in this instance .  Rushyo   Talk  11:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I should point out that Rhys has been in the news multiple times. Indeed, the awards he's cited as receiving occur before the recent outburst of media notability relating to the American clinic, which is merely the most recent of his news-worthy items. I should like to point out that RECENTISM is not a rule, particularly so as Wikipedia "does not employ hard-and-fast rules" (Policies_and_guidelines). In addition, he's a respected member of various fields (skepticism, consumer protection, libel reform et al.) who is recognised as a significant figure in those areas by many other significant figures (amongst them Stephen Fry, David Allen Green, James Randi and Ben Goldacre). Most crucially, I observe that many 'notable' people only appear in the news once or twice, no matter what the value of their life's work and notability amongst society since the media does not necessarily reflect Wikipedia's definition of what is notable. It is very hard to find people who are regularly in the news day in and day out. It is therefore, in my honest opinion, silly to assume that failure to be in the news every month is a failure of notability since otherwise we would have significant difficulities in maintaining articles on any people whose notability has not been established over their entire lifetime. Further to the above I would like to note that whilst Wikipedia requires Significant coverage for notability, the word significant is taken to mean that which 'address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.' (Notability). It is clear that the sources more than adequately meet this criteria. I see no legitimate challenge to NOTABILITY. The fact that one party has not heard of another party is not the criteria by which notability is to be considered and it is my opinion that there is no objective value (let alone subjective) in the original complaint.  Rushyo   Talk  11:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Regardless of canvassing allegations, I'm not seeing any evidence whatsoever to substantiate several key claims made in this nomination. If these postulations were made in error, they should be renounced by the nominator in a way that is conducive to productive discussion; we are all human and occasionally make mistakes—it is sometimes embarrassing but there is no reason why conceding a refuted point should reflect poorly on one's character. Otherwise, if there's compelling information that has mistakenly been left unstated, then it needs to be made known, because at this point its abscence impedes debate on the merit of notability alone. —  C M B J   13:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP - The "hoax"-bit should be resolved by now, but if anyone is still in doubt, I have exchanged PMs and emails with Rhys regarding MMS when this was "hot", and I have no doubt that he is flesh and blood. He is also "notable" in the skeptic communities and bloggosphere all over the Western world, in connection with MMS and also the Burzynski shenanigans. Is there any particular evidence that the nominator thinks is missing, to document the text in the article about Rhys, I suggest he asks for it specifically, so it may be produced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronja R (talk • contribs) 13:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple reliable sources attest that the subject really exists; it's no hoax. Notability is not the strongest but I'm confident that it's past the WP:NPEOPLE benchmark. It's not really helpful that lots of people have turned up to make their first edit at this AfD, because decisions here are supposed to be based on the strongest policy-based arguments rather than who can muster the most friends (or sockpuppets). I would encourage people to frame their arguments in terms of policy, and to assume good faith - deletion discussions can often be stressful or hostile, so resist the urge to escalate the conflict. However, if any of you recent editors would like to stick around and improve the article or - even better - improve other bits of the encyclopædia, I'd love to help. bobrayner (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2011 (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.