Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Jonze (3rd 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Jonze

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

I deleted this as a speedy G4 in July 2017 on the basis that the first AfD had closed as delete. I have undeleted it as it has now been pointed out to me that there was a second AfD that closed as no consensus in 2014. Embarassingly, I had actually taken part in that AfD but had forgotten. SpinningSpark 18:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article paints a picture of another journo doing his job. Nothing notable there. Search suggests this is entirely true. Lacks coverage about him as opposed to by him. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all the above. Most of the sources in the article (if they're not dead) are proof of the existence of things this guy has written about. That is at least two degrees of separation from notability. He has several professional profiles confirming that he is in fact a music journalist, but little has been written about him as a subject in his own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jonze has been frequently been a part of news and articles published by The Guardian, Rolling Stone, BBC,[1] HuffPost. Has also received coverage from numerous Google books. Capitals00 (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source you link isn't about Jonze himself, it's about the substance of an article that carried his name in NME, that he claims is not what he wrote and asked for his name to be removed. So he CSD'd G7 it in effect, no longer adding to his notability, if it even ever did. No more substantial links you'd like to provide to these "frequent" articles and "numerous" books? SpinningSpark 14:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it passes WP:GNG.[2][3][4] Also meets WP:JOURNALIST since he has been "widely cited by peers or successors".[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] There are over hundreds of reliable sources, if I were to consider sources that make a passing mention or lack exclusive focus like these sources. Prevalence of sources, emphasizing his work demonstrate that notability is not an issue. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the sources you present as evidence of passing GNG. 1. An advert. Adverts are not independent reliable sources. Given that you started this article which led with "Tim Jonze is a journalist for NME and The Guardian" I'm assuming you know Jonze worked with the Guardian. Given that how can you claim that an advert from the guardian is independent? 2. Popsugar. Enough said. A few tweets by Jonze, not about Jonze. No help for GNG. 3. An article in The Guardian. Given that you started this article which led with "Tim Jonze is a journalist for NME and The Guardian" I'm assuming you know Jonze worked with the Guardian. Given that how can you claim that an advert from the guardian is independent? Even ignoring that It's about Ren Harvieu, not about Jonze so no help on GNG. A spectacular fail of demonstrating GNG. And the citing claim. Do you know what citing is? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read what is a WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Even your small analysis of only 3 sources prove that subject is meets notability. Capitals00 (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with more content. But frankly saying, comments such as "article paints a picture", "most of the sources in the article", show that none of the "delete" votes have done their homework by doing a simple Google search or making any efforts to check if subject meets notability. Notability doesn't depend on what has been mentioned on an en.wiki article, but what really exists across the world. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Try not to make accusations about previous voters. I for one commented on the current state of the article and did a search for better sources. My vote is already recorded and I will leave it at that, but I will say that many (but not all) of the sources you found are still about media matters in which Jonze participated as a journalist, and are not about him specifically. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Occultzone. 1. You've updated the article with more of the same. He is a journo doing his job. Yes he reviews thing, yes he interviews people. That's his job. 2. Please don't call me a liar. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Jonze receives coverage for his work from mainstream sources per WP:SIGCOV. You are deliberately omitting that. Capitals00 (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this significant coverage? duffbeerforme (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Significant coverage from independent reliable sources establishing him as a notable journalist. desmay (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources in particular? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources mentioned here and there. Article needs some expansion but WP:SIGCOV in media and scholarly sources establish notability. My Lord (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources in particular? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A journalist doing a job doesn't automatically transfer notability. Wikipedia would be filled with hundreds of thousands of barely notable journalists. The Columbian Journalism Librarian (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article meets WP:JOURNALIST, as seen with the significance of reliable sources noted in the article as well as in this discussion. Journalism doing his job but also receiving coverage from BBC, The Guardian, PopSugar, Spiegel, The New York Times, etc., leaves no doubt regarding notability. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

?The significance of reliable sources noted in the article? What's significant about them? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. —MBL ^talk 10:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is it clear? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeoning every policy-based vote won't help you. Capitals00 (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A vague wave at a policy is not a policy based argument. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commnent. When I sent this back to AfD I was hoping that the closer would this time do an assessment of whether or not the supporters of this article had plausibly demonstrated GNG's "significant coverage" rather than another wishy washy no consensus close. SpinningSpark 13:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think specific keep arguments would be stronger and this would benefit from citing specific sources rather than what read as vague handwaves and assertions. We have specific sources about him? Right?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having looked at many of the sources linked to in comments above, I feel that there is sufficient to show that Jonze is notable. Ross-c (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of passing mentions don't turn into notability. Per analysis of sources by Duffbeerforme above. What happened to GNG's significant coverage - that addresses the topic directly and in detail, and independant coverage? Do suggest the closer to look at the keep arguments and their extreme weakness and WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:ITSNOTABLEness Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you are ignoring the many independent sources, significantly talking about Tim Jonze. I don't see any analysis from Duffbeerforme. Subject easily meets WP:JOURNALIST since he has been "widely cited by peers or successors". Can you provide an argument against it? Or you are just cherrypicking WP:GNG? It says: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Tim Jonze meets that requirement per [17][18][19][20][21][22] and other dozens of sources. Subject has been mentioned or discussed in not only independent media but also academic sources easily fulfills criteria of notability. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. There is enough coverage in independent WP:RS,[23][24][25] including the links from Google books that have been provided above. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2018 (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.