Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys Morgan (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Rhys Morgan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Brief rationale

See my bullet points: I am also afraid the voting process might be rigged by over-representation due to his mild Internet popularity and fandom. Should his occasional blog followers know about it, they would flood Wikipedia to vote. I thus suggest vote is restricted to only people with Wikipedia activity that occurred prior to 2011. Consequently, I will not notify the author of the article personally. If somebody wants to do it, they are welcome, but I think this would damage the independence and intellectual autonomy of the evaluation process. Thank you all. MarcelloPapirio (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Sparse appearance in the media (mostly 2011, see sources);
 * 2) Not eminent and not performing above expectations in his field of interest;
 * 3) Only locally relevant (see talk);
 * 4) Low level of activity since 2011;
 * 5) Famous for only one event (in the second event he was not the main character; just one among the many bloggers who addressed the issue. Got threats as a consequence of his blog? Yeah. Even my gf got stalked once;
 * 6) This page cannot be made better, because it should not be here in first place;
 * 7) When proposed for speed deletion in 2011, people voted for him being notable but were fooled by the fact he was on TV, but being on TV may only be a clue of notability and not sufficient evidence for it;

Long explanation with link to relevant Wikipedia policy page

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: 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: 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 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)


 * Keep. Notability is not temporary.  Here's some major coverage spread out over several years, anyway:  from The Guardian in 2010,  from The Guardian in 2011,  from The Daily Telegraph in 2015, and  from The New Statesman in 2016.  Morgan also made international headlines:  from Houston Press in the US and  from The Sydney Morning Herald in AU.  Although the majority of coverage is about two incidents, it's obviously not a case of BLP1E.  I'd say he's notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)]
 * I didn't look closely enough at that SMH article; it's actually syndicated content from The Guardian. Well, it's not as good as I initially thought, but it's still evidence of international attention, I suppose.  To make up for that, here's two different stories from Slate:  in French and  in English. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As mentioned above, notability is not temporary, and he has been covered by many sources. If he was clearly notable then, he's clearly notable now. Also, the closing admin has ways to make sure there's no meatpuppetry when they close it. Banning everyone who registered for Wikipedia in the last five years from participating in this AfD is significant overkill and goes against numerous policies. Smartyllama (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep perhaps for now as this seems acceptable for now, perhaps reconsider later if needed. SwisterTwister   talk  22:44, 25 April 2016 (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.