Talk:David L. Jones (video blogger)

Why not interviews?

Ronz added a notability - biography tag, with comment "BIO not met with interviews alone".

I don't see why not.

The editors of Circuit Cellar magazine (a 25-plus-year-old, well respected magazine in the embedded electronics field), decided to devote the regular "Q&A" column of one of their issues on Dave Jones. And the author of a book from a major publisher in the computer field, whose goal was to "introduce you to people at the forefront of [the Maker] movement" (that's from the book's Introduction), elected to devote a chapter to him. I don't see why that doesn't count for notability. And I see absolutely nothing in WP:BIO to support the notion that it doesn't. WP:BASIC (part of WP:BIO says:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]"

These sources are reliable, and they are independent of each other. One might claim that, being interviews, they are not "independent of the subject", but the note [6] clarifies:

"The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability."

There is no problem here; neither CC nor the book chapter are entries in biographical dictionaries, and it was the magazine editor and book author who considered the subject notable and published their non-trivial works, not the subject himself.

I will also point out that one of the "delete" voters at the deletion discussion changed his vote after these references were added, saying that they were sufficient to prove notability, and the other "delete" voter has agreed that the CC article qualifies.

WP:BASIC also notes that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Well, the latter proviso is unimportant as we already have substantial depth in two RSs, but we do also have a number of independent sources each with a non-substantial, yet significant, import. These should not be ignored; although not sufficient to meet WP:N on their own, they do give support to the two major references.

In light of these points I would like to ask Ronz to reconsider this tag... or else point out exactly where in policy or guidelines he finds clear support for his claim that "BIO not met with interviews alone".

Oh, and one other thing: Ronz's full edit comment was "BIO not met with interviews alone - his blog seems more notable than him". This is very strange, following as it did Ronz's deletion of ELs both to Dave's eevblog web site and to his YouTube channel (which could be argued to be his main blog). If the blog is notable, but clearly we can't include all of its content in the article, why can't we link to it? He cites WP:NOTLINK, but that says "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article." Since David's reputation is as a video blogger, it is pretty hard to argue that his web site and his YouTube channel are not content-relevant. So there must be some other problem. What is it? Jeh (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit - added: Or, maybe Ronz should simply join in the deletion discussion and explain to the group at large why interviews aren't enough to establish notability, despite Wikimandia's changing his previous "Delete" vote on the basis of these refs. DreamFocus could use the support since at the moment he's the only one the "Delete" side and even he has admitted that the CC interview qualifies; he's just been quibbling over the RS-ness of the book. Jeh (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Kindly stop with your personal attacks and focus on the issue. Once I determined the interview was by an actual staff member, and the website not just a WP:USERGENERATED content farm, I said the CC interview qualified. I do not however believe a book published by an unknown writer, containing nothing but interviews he did with 21 people, makes everyone he choose to interview notable. Not every single book a for profit company publishes confers notability to someone. Dream Focus 13:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no personal attack there, only a description of the situation. If you think I have misrepresented the situation, say so. If you still think there is a PA, please let me know exactly what you are construing as a PA. Re the actual issue, if you will raise that specific objection at the deletion discussion I will respond there; the discussion should not be split. Which was the point of my last paragraph above. Jeh (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Interviews are primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ronz: I honestly think you should take this up at the deletion discussion. The discussion should not be split. Jeh (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Already did. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability and primary sources

Coming from the AfD, I don't think anyone identified any sources that meet WP:N, so by definition the notability is unclear and even in doubt.

Wikipedia articles should be sourced mostly from secondary or tertiary sources. If we cannot find them, the article should be deleted or stubbed. Since we just had an AfD, stubbing seems appropriate, unless better sources can be found. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

One, sources do not themselves have to be notable. (again and again and again... )

Two, from WP:PEOPLE: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There are two sources that meet those criteria, the interview in Circuit Cellar and the book chapter. There was no consensus that these did not establish notability. Yes, there were a few arguments that they did not, but that's not the same thing. Also, please see WP:DEADHORSE. Jeh (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither source demonstrates significant coverage. This has been explained in detail.

As for DEADHORSE, how about addressing my attempts to move on: Stub or find better sources. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that an entire book chapter is significant coverage, and selection as the subject of a monthly feature in a regularly published specialty magazine in a relevant field is significant coverage. What you have "explained in detail" is, likewise, certainly your opinion. Please do not mistake your opinion for a final binding judgment. I will not, no matter how many times you repeat it. Jeh (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

So you aren't interested in moving on? --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Obvious strawman. Jeh (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

So if I go ahead and start stubbing the article, what will be your policy-based response? --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Stubbing the article would be going backward. Why do you want to go backward? Jeh (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you provide any policy or guideline to base those statements upon? --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You are obviously trying to delete this article by littles because deleting it all at once failed. In the deletion discussion your theory was that the interviews are not primary sources. Had you convinced the closing admin of that, the article would have been deleted. But that wasn't the result. Your theory has therefore been found wanting, and it was wrong of you to restore the templates. It would also be wrong of you to delete material simply because you think the references are to primary sources; there is no consensus for that view. Jeh (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

So the answer is no. --Ronz (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. I hold that the basic requirements of WP:BIO, as quoted several times in these discussions already, have been met: Significant coverage in multiple non-self-published sources. There are multiple sources and they were not published by the subject, so they're not self-published. In fact they were published in a well-respected magazine and in a book from a long-established publisher. QED. I accept that you refuse to acknowledge my reasoning, even to the extent of refusing to reply to it, but I do not accept that you get to define the criteria here. The closing admin apparently did not find your "notability not established" argument compelling, so what you think you will accomplish by bringing that argument up again here, I do not know. But in any case, you don't get to stub the article simply because you are not satisfied with it. Jeh (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. You've no consensus that WP:BIO has been met. Let's pretend it has. What is Jones notable for? Please quote from the WP:BIO sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. WP:BASIC (part of WP:BIO) says:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]"

That's it. If that is met, then there is no need to cite any other evidence of notability. So if you're pretending that WP:BIO has been met (I certainly am not pretending; I claim that it has), we're done here. Jeh (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you able to answer the question or not? What is he notable for? Please quote from WP:BIO sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as WP:BASIC (part of WP:BIO) is met the subject is, and I quote for about the sixth time, "presumed notable", so an answer to your question is not required. Jeh (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

So there's no policy-based argument against stubbing the article, as we're unable to establish how Jones is notable and then write an article around that notability? --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think you can ignore the "presumed notable" wording of WP:BIO? Why do you think that, once notability is "presumed" by having met WP:BASIC, any or all other article content must also be "notable"? It doesn't. WP:Notability requirements are for the existence of articles, not content. WP:N is very clear on this point. Jeh (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what does that have to do with stubbing? --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. You're the one who keeps going on about finding sources that meet WP:N. Jeh (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No I'm not. I'm asking to quote from WP:BIO sources what it is he is notable for. I'm trying to find if there is indeed any notability that we can build an article around. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, there are not enough sources to meet notability standards. I would support deletion of the article, in fact, but at the very least there is a lot of material that should go. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is almost four months old. Would you like to continue this below? And when you do, could you specify exactly which material should go, and in each case, why? Jeh (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

More tendentious editing by Ronz

Ronz has once again decided, despite consensus, to remove much of this article, leaving only a stub, with only the reason "BLP". This is tendentious and disruptive. Ronz needs to define exactly how each removed point violates BLP. Just saying "it's a BLP violation" is not enough. Jeh (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ronz also added a "neutrality" template without specifying how the article is non-neutral, a "not-notable" complaint even though several well-referenced points in the article establish notability, and an "advertising" template even though the product's price is not mentioned, nor is information on how to buy it, and all of the subject section is referenced to sources that are not advertising; the section is merely descriptive, and the text favorably comparing it to an expensive commercial product is referenced to a RS.

Furthermore, although each of these templates have a "discuss on talk page" link, he has started no discussion. He just deleted the stuff he didn't like.

An IP has now restored the article. Per WP:BRD, Ronz (or other interested parties) should discuss each of his specific complaints and the changes he wants to make here, not stubify the article again. 08:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

4.26.51.74 (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Many of the the referenced sources/links are either referencing his website (e.g. eevblog) and thus directly or indirectly promotes his own product (e.g. eevblog/uCurrent). Notability remains an issue with the added references from local news site.