Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Young (DJ)

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. While the headcount is pretty evenly split, it seems like the arguments that the sources do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV criteria are pretty ironclad, mostly because the sources either aren't independent or are little more than passing mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Young (DJ)

Jeff Young (DJ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This doesn't appear to be a notable DJ. Lengthy careers might look nice on a resume but are ultimately irrelevant on Wikipedia when the subject lacks in depth, independent coverage Praxidicae (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Experienced Radio DJ, presenter of Radio 1 and several significant Radio stations in the UK and recipient of a Sony Radio Award. Passes WP:BASIC Mrluke485 (talk) 22:04 14 November 2019 (GMT)
• Keep The article could do with more independent sources but as Mrluke485 says, documenting a career in the national media of 40 years, with references, means that the article passes WP:BASIC. Rillington (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, in order to substantiate claims, you'll need to provide actual reliable sources. Simply saying it happened based on primary sources does not make it true. Praxidicae (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Added a few more sources. I have little knowledge about radio in UK, but per above points, the article is good enough to pass WP:BASIC. _SUPER ^ASTIG 04:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added are all primary, there is not a single independent reliable source and more importantly, none of these sources credibly verify any of these supposed claims to notability. Praxidicae (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources I added are primary sources, while the others are independent. Hence, from my POV, it's still good enough to pass WP:BASIC. I'm not looking for a debate or an argument. I'll still stand with my vote no matter what. So, BE IT. PERIOD. _SUPER ^ASTIG 04:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but policy matters on Wikipedia and not opinion. Unless sources can be provided to support each claim (and it can be shown that there is any independent coverage) there is a total failure to actually provide a policy based reason to keep. Praxidicae (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is the BBC Genome Project website which carries BBC TV and radio listings, including Radio 1, and this is always a good website for independent references. However, there is no mention that I could find of what was his first show for the station, nor is there any mention of his show on 4 January 1991 being his last programme for Radio 1. Rillington (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I’ve managed to add a couple more independent sources, the page needs tidying up but subject definitely passed WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given that a number of independent sources have now been added, there are now enough independent references to secure this article's retention. Rillington (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In what universe are these independent coverage? This is a mention that he posted about someone's death on FB. Nothing more. this is an interview, this is far from anything that could be considered independent coverage, this is a single paragraph in a questionable source, another primary source, this is a listing of his show, so not even in the realm of being coverage or independent. Please provide some actual sources that aren't affiliated with him, because none of these keep votes are based in actual policy or inclusion criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it is a unanimous decision that users and contributors want to keep this article, it passes as we have mentioned WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Just because it hasn't gone your way, doesn't mean you should try and belittle those who have found sources. If more people are favouring it to remain, it should remain. I've not heard one person other than yourself say it should be deleted. Mrluke485 (talk) 17:45 (GMT) 13 January 2020

Um, no that's not how AFD works. It's not about number of votes, its about the quality of votes and basis in existing policies and criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, has anyone else made a request to delete it... No, only you have. For those who want to keep it, we have a right to defend this article and your trying to make out that our defence to this article is irrelevant. You can’t just delete it by either default or because you don’t like it. It’s a harmless article at the end of the day. I’ve not heard you give any good reason to why it should be deleted. Mrluke485 (talk) 20:42 (GMT) 13 January 2020

I really think you misunderstand Wikipedia. Poorly sourced BLPs are harmful. Praxidicae (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I honestly don't know why this is still being contested, he DJed for stations like BBC Radio 1, Capital Radio, won awards, has worked on documentaries and was featured in reliable sources. Obviously not all DJs with long careers are inherently notable (the same can be said of singers, entrepreneurs, authors, etc) but this one clearly is.MusickMann (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Edit: I am changing my vote from Keep to Comment in light of the arguments brought forward by Praxidicae and User:Bradv, it does appear that some of the sources are insufficient although my first instincts were that the individual was notable. Perhaps it can be improved or recreated at a later date when better sources are available. MusickMann (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree. The article has been improved and independent sources added and I've now added yet another independent source which is an audio clip of Jeff hosting Club Culture on Capital FM and 10 seconds into the clip he says "Jeff Young's Club Culture on 95.8 Capital FM". Rillington (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in what universe is a sound byte an independent source?!?! I am baffled by the lack of policy based reasoning in this AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I have added are independent sources which you can yourself Google - they were found on Google books. There are two separate independent BBC sources, one from BBC News and one from Radio 2. Yes the Evening Telegraph is merely a mention, but it is a clear independent sources that he is a Jazz FM employee, that's not on the Jazz FM website. Unsourced BLPs cause a lot of damage but this is not one of them!Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This clip is from an independent source, and the site also includes clips from his time at XFM London, thereby providing an independent reference of his time at XFM. As MusickMann (talk) says, I am genuinely baffled as to why this is still ongoing given that all replies have said Keep and that more and more independent sources have been discovered and added to the article. Rillington (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I've just added a source from the Independent, stating that he was appointed to join XFM. This should be the end of the matter. Any further conversation on this matter is vexatious. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be missing the crux of the issue here and that is subjects require independent, reliable coverage. Announcements about positions are nothing more than job titles. They are not coverage, just like his resume is not coverage. It's PR. Have a read of WP:IRS, thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And since there seems to be a misconception here that feelings and opinion matter more than established consensus and policies, let me lay out the sources everyone is claiming are independent. If you disagree, please provide a policy/consensus based reason other than vote brigading as to why my assessment of each source is wrong.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://campsoulfestival.com/artist/jeff-young/		reliable as a primary source only	Obviously coverage is not provided by primary sources	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b038xdm0	there seems to be a misconception here that because BBC publishes something, its independent. It's not. Its nothing more than an interview.	~ reliable for primary and basic facts only.		✘ No
https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/founding-member-of-dundees-average-white-band-dies-aged-74/	This is independent but it's as much about Young as it is about Facebook.		Nada. Zilch. This has nothing to do with Young other than he announced the death of someone. Having this in the article is useless.	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41414837	Can't be independent when BBC is the owner of the network his show is on.	~ again, for primary and basic facts	Oh look, another listicle!	✘ No
http://www.bluesandsoul.com/feature/226/the_40_essential	?	? I have doubts about the reliability of this but it certainly doesn't lend itself to notability		✘ No
https://www.summersoulstice.co.uk/dj-profiles/youngy/		~ for primary and basic facts only, it's not even worth evaluating as a source.		✘ No
aircheckdownloads recording		"airhackerclips"? This is surely a joke.	This isn't even close to being anything encyclopedic as a source.	✘ No
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/on-air-world-record-holder-1175223.html	It's independent, literally but irrelevant to this aritcle.		Basic announcement, a single one line mention that he is in a show.	✘ No
aircheckdownloads XFMLondon		This is just an (illegal) listing of shows and probably shouldn't ever be linked.		✘ No
https://www.jazzfm.com/on-air/jeff-young/		~ only for basic primary information.	this cannot ever be considered coverage considering it's posted by the company that hosts the show.	✘ No
https://radiotoday.co.uk/2013/11/robbie-vincent-refused-last-show-on-jazz/		~ primary.	again: zilch about Young. And it's not independent.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh and how can I forget the book references, the one written by Devlin says Young's name in a footnote, nothing actual about him nor coverage, the other is pretty much self published nonsense and says virtually nothing useful about Young. Praxidicae (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae, you seem to be an isolated voice, we have tried our hardest to find as much independent coverage as possible. You have been nothing but hostile towards us when we are trying to defend the article, with sources and coverage. I think this whole argument that you are wanting is becoming just absurd and ludicrous and also unfair. I think you should except the decision that users and editors want to keep it and give up with this pointless vendetta of wanting to delete it. Mrluke485 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured I am not being hostile. But you've yet to provide a single independent reliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I agree with you that some of these sources aren’t reliable, but some are. We have clearly demonstrated notability under WP:GNG to a far higher degree than many other AfD debates I have been involved in. Whilst I’m impressed with the diligent nature of your source checking (oh, if only other editors were like you!), in my opinion your analysis of several of the sources is incorrect.

Right, here goes:

- Independent - this isn’t a press release, it isn’t PR from the company, it’s an independent comment piece, written by a journalist without PR involvement, talking about the presenters on the station. As part of the prose, the author confirms that the subject is a presenter on the station. Therefore, we can use this source to back up the WP article’s claim that he presents for that station.

- BBC - you seem to think that the BBC is one great big monolith where everyone bigs up each other’s shows - not the case. We can treat a BBC News online article a little differently to when someone writes a first-person blog on Radio 1. Firstly, when both of these articles were written, the subject hadn’t been employed by the BBC for over 20 years. Secondly, the articles aren’t PR pieces, but it’s a record of BBC editorial that’s independent from the department he’s been making programmes in - he is notable enough to be invited onto a show and it is assumed by Radio 2 that people will know who he is - because he’s notable. Again, the BBC News article confirms the point that has been made about him presenting the first dance show, so we can use that source to back up the WP article’s claim.

- Radio Today - this is an independent source and perfectly acceptable for WP:GNG - it’s an independent trade magazine for the radio industry. Again it confirms that he is a notable DJ, notable enough to have been mentioned, and that he works for said radio station.

- Evening Telegraph - the fact that this newspaper has chosen to include his tribute as a comment proves that, firstly, he works for the station that we assert, and secondly that he’s notable enough that the Evening Telegraph thinks we’d care what he says.

NB note that I haven’t gone on to talk about every source - I don’t need to. Even if you agree with just one of the points above, that still means he’s notable to close this AfD debate. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with a single point you've made and you contradict yourself. You cannot possibly meet notability guidelines if there is no coverage. Period. This isn't an A7 tag, the bar is much higher. You also fail in your analysis to understand that independence is irrelevant when it isn't coverage. The few independent sources here are not about Young. Praxidicae (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is lifted from WP:GNG - “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you cannot show that someone even meets GNG with only 2 single independent refs that are nothing more than a passing mention, per your own argument, this does not meet GNG because it is literally all trivial. None of it goes beyond "Young worked at x" "young said x died." Read what actual WP:NOTABILITY is. Also take a read of WP:BLP and think about the impact that having a widely visible article about a private, low profile individual means. Every single keep here is a literal encyclopedic example of what not to do. Praxidicae (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I have read those policies, and I disagree with your interpretation. I’m not entering into further discussion. It appears that many other editors also disagree. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's fine, you and others are welcome to disagree. You can disagree that water is wet because "that's what I feel like" but it doesn't make it true, the same way that claiming "he's notable because I said so!" doesn't make it true when policy and consensus disagree. Anyway, have a nice day/night/whatever. Praxidicae (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well you clearly want it gone, so why not just delete it then, oh wait I forgot you need someone else to second it, which you clearly haven't got the support to do. It is a unanimous decision that we want to keep it and your argument has just become more irrelevant and also antagonistic as the days have gone on. There are articles outside of this page that have less coverage than this that you should spend more time on them, rather than this page. You've taken virtually nothing into account over what we have said, you are being very hostile towards us, because we have disagreed with you. You just want this deleted, whatever the argument is, I'm pretty sure if we had found something you consider independent, you would have tried to undermined us as you have shown throughout this debate. Also you are wasting your time trying to find some excuse to why it should be deleted. You are clearly looking for an argument and we are finding it very hard to be polite when you think you can just overrule our defence for keeping this article. Mrluke485 (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

disagreeing with bad logic is not hostility. Ironic given your personal attacks here. I’d consider your view if you provided anything - a single independent source about Young - but you can’t, because it doesn’t exist. Cheers. Praxidicae (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Says a user who continues to refuses to give a proper answer when one of us try and argue the reasons why it shouldn't be deleted, thinks he's better than anyone else and won't listen to those who try and defend the article. Your the one who began the personal attacks, you think your better than us, you think we are joke and you don't like what we present. You clearly haven't thought this through "MATE". Have a Nice Day Mrluke485 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I can see why this is difficult, as this seems like the kind of person who should be notable. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and the in-depth source analysis done by Praxidicae shows that this standard is not met. The sources are all either not independent, not reliable, or only mentions in passing. There isn't a single source that meets these criteria, and typically we would want to see at least three, especially for a biography of a living person. – bradv🍁 15:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:GNG clearly requires significant, in-depth, coverage in multiple reliable sources, most importantly for notability those sources must also be independent of the subject. The table provided by Praxidicae here clearly shows those requirements have not been met here, as does a personal review I conducted of the sources in the article. All that are available are passing mentions, or are too close to the subject to be considered anything but primary. Unless better sourcing can be found or provided, I unfortunately believe this presenter is not notable enough to have an article yet on our site. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Final Comment There really does seem to be a real determination to get rid of this article, so much so that when I added two independent sources, they were deleted. Plus I've found the tone of some of the comments to be somewhat aggressive. Whilst I accept that this isn't the perfect Wikipedia biography, there's nothing wrong with this article and there are now more than enough reliable independent sources for it to pass any Wikipedia notability guidelines. I've expressed my view that this article should be retained so I'm now going to step out of this discussion. Rillington (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rillington If you're referring to these sources that is because not only are they not independent, it's against policy because it's linking to material that is being hosted illegally. Praxidicae (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And let me explain further, this is pretty black and white. It cannot be independent because it's a broadcast of the subject and a name drop. I think you misunderstand what independent is. Just because it's not hosted by his website/employer doesn't mean it's independent and in this case it's a catch-22 because if you want to claim it is independent, it's a violation of Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking and WP:LINKVIO. I highly doubt the hosting show gave the uploader permission for that content and if you want to argue that they do hold the copyright it just circles right back to being primary...Praxidicae (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Lack of in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A BEFORE I’ve just conducted shows him discussed in primary sources not independent of him & the list article about “40 best Dj’s........” is not evidence of true notability as it mentions him in passing & not per WP:GNG standard as in-depth significant coverage is not observed. @Mrluke485, I know this is quite devastating, but knowing a person is notable per your own knowledge & proving their notability on this collaborative project are two different complex things & as editors here, we are taxed/tasked with Proving notability with reliable sources & verifing notability claims, even worse/more difficult for editors residing in third world countries such as Nigeria due to obvious reasons but I don’t see why subject of our discussion should “struggle this much” if indeed he is notable, finding reliable sources to substantiate notability claims shouldn’t be a Herculean task. Hence clearly he isn’t notable enough yet.Celestina007 (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2020 (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.