Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Schofield

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 delete. KaisaL (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Schofield

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply because there's a listed major news source is not automatically inheriting genuine significance or actual notability and the information and sources themselves in fact show nothing for actual substance, the career is simply trivial and unconvincing. WP:NOT policy fittingly applies because this is simply a job listing. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete general notability guidelines require multiple sources that are reliable. A local color story in a newspaper is generally not how we show that someone is a notable historian. There is only one reliable source about Schofield in the article, we need multiple to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep assuming it can be verified to Wiki standards, I say weak keep simply because he has interviewed several notable people. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not clear to me yet. I've been tidying up his article and looking for sources. There are several "Jonathan Schofield"s to shuffle through - and he's clearly written about a lot in the Manchester paper. I'll do some more digging and see what I can find, for instance book reviews would be helpful.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have been vacillating between weak keep and delete, but I think it should be delete. What makes him notable - in terms of BBC interviews, references in books, and the success of his tours - is that he's a historian. But, I'm not finding meaningful reviews of his books and his classic, oft-referenced line about Friedrich Engels, "without Manchester there would have been no Soviet Union. And the history of the 20th century would have been very different" is based upon faulty logic (perhaps knowingly to make for an enjoyable tour, but doesn't lift his reputation as a historian). There is more that could be written about him as a public speaker, for instance, but I still don't think that would lift his notability appreciably. (He sounds like someone I would like to get a tour from, though, because of his personality, background knowledge, and passion.) Also, I could not find one comprehensive article about him from an independent source - and some of the content that still is in the article likely shouldn't be, like his books (lacking independent reviews), perhaps the BBC content, etc.

Postcard Cathy, I moved the information about who he interviewed, gave tours to, etc. to the talk page - because as a journalist and tour guide, that would be a standard part of doing business. I posted it there in the event that there might be something noteworthy about his interactions with these individuals, but I didn't come across anything when looking for sources.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The average reporter and tour guide never gets to meet people such as those mentioned. Local reporters might meet local or regional VIPs but I can tell you for my sleepy suburb, I have no clue who our mayor or chief of police is, and I doubt you do either! Or care, even if you did. Postcard Cathy (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you think that information should be returned feel free. I agree that he is probably getting more that the usual allotment of celebrities, because from all that I've read he's the most well-known tour guide in the city.

(I know who my mayor is, and I know the chief of police is a woman, but I forget her name. That's funny, though!)--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added them back with a {{cn}} tag. In addition, it would be helpful to have more information for context, since the interactions could fall into one of three categories: interviewed by, interviewed, or took on a tour.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability would be as an author. WorldCat [1] shows that his guidebooks to Manchester are not the most widely held ones, at least in libraries. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage about the person. He has a job and is probab;y good at it. Being used to answer some interview questions doesn't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - his name rings a bell, but the article does not prove notability. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.