Talk:David L. Jones (video blogger)/Archive 3

RFC: Inclusion of draft sections
The purpose of this multi-part RFC is to determine whether particular sections should be included in David L. Jones.

Please reply Yes or Include or No or Exclude in the Survey for each section. Where there are two choices of content, please indicate which is preferred. Do not respond to the !votes of other editors in the Survey. Discussion should be in Threaded Discussion.


 * Note to closer - There is off-wiki coordination concerning this article. For that reason, please discount all !votes by unregistered editors.  Please take into account that comments by new editors may represent off-wiki coordination. --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Batteriser
Recent version: Recently, the article stated : On September 17, 2015, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article reporting on an upcoming battery booster product, the Batteriser, and controversy surrounding the claim that it could extend battery life by up to eight times. Dave Jones published at EEVBlog a detailed 40-minute theoretical 'takedown' of Batteroo's claims without having the product.. The CEO of Batteroo, the San Jose tech startup behind the Batteriser, stated that "every single one" of Jones' points was wrong, indicated that legal action against Jones was being considered, claimed that Jones had no formal electronic engineering credentials, and alleged that Jones was in the employ of Duracell (a claim that company denied). Three electronics and battery storage experts interviewed for the article concurred in finding the product claims of 8x battery life extension, misleading.

Earlier, on September 2, 2015, the EEVBlog channel received a number of "dislikes," which Jones alleged was an attempt to demote the rank of a second video criticizing the Batteriser—it was later discovered that other YouTube channels with videos critical of the Batteriser were similarly affected. A researcher at Dell SecureWorks noted that the majority of the dislikes arrived "all at once in massive spikes that did not correlate with an increase in the number of views to the videos being disliked," and explained that dislike spam is a way to manipulate YouTube's view recommendation system.

Proposed version: "In mid 2015 Jones published a video blog disputing the claims made by the manufacturer of a then unreleased battery life extender, the Batteriser. Batteroo, the company behind the product, refuted Jones' arguments and published a number of demonstration videos in response. Jones' videos received a number of 'dislikes,' which he alleged was an attempt to demote the their rank. '"

Should one of these (the current or proposed content) be included in the article? If so, which? --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * INCLUDE proposed version ゼーロ (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include proposed version While we have multiple sources here, they say almost nothing about Jones, and little about EEVblog. The current version is clearly undue. WP:NOTNEWS states, "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are." While I think some coverage may be due, the current version has details that are far beyond anything encyclopedic. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP recent version  Jeh (talk)
 * Include proposed version - I agree with an above user that the current version is clearly WP:UNDUE and the sources do not necessarily support the information in the current version. The proposed version is more appropriate.  Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 01:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep current version subject to improvement - More specifically, include well-sourced facts that fully describe the controversy in a concise format. Choosing between arbitrary versions in an article that is in the midst of being written from scratch is not helpful. --Tsavage (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Change but expand Batteriser: A brief version is warranted, but elements of the the longer version are far more relevant to Batteriser, and could/should expand that article. Per my Industry Reaction vote, this Batteriser para should be included with Industry Reaction. undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  04:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The proposed version should replace the word "refuted" with "disputed". If they refuted his arguments they disproved them (at least to wide acceptance), and that's not supported. undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  00:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I'm hesitant to change it in the RfC at this point, but any associated content should be changed accordingly. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Ronz's arguments are invalid, examples of misapplying PAG.

First, the notability point he quotes from NOTNEWS doesn't apply. The section that NOTNEWS links to starts out: "Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not: [...] News reports." Emphasis added: It's about inclusion of entire articles, not content within articles. This is yet another example of the principle that notability requirements apply to article topics, not to points within an article. I would agree that we should not (given existing sources) have an entire article on the Batteriser controversy, but that's not what's at issue here.

WP:DUE does not apply here either. Rewording slightly from my earlier comment on this topic... I quote from WP:Neutrality (which is what WP:DUE links to):
 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

I don't see a problem with the existing content in this regard. If anything, Ronz and others have been vigorously trying to find reasons to exclude "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", rather than the opposite. But let's continue:
 * "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

In other words, WP:DUE has to do with giving appropriate emphasis to various viewpoints in an article that presents several opposing ones, even to the point of ignoring some viewpoints if they're the position of a "tiny minority". To correctly use WP:DUE to exclude sources here, they would have to present the viewpoints of a tiny minority, and for that to happen there would have to be a much larger majority with an opposing view. But there is no such opposing majority here, certainly not one whose opinions are being ignored. Therefore nothing at issue here can be considered UNDUE per the WP neutrality policy. Jeh (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"
 * "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." --Ronz (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ronz: To restate editor Jeh's comment, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" refers to situations with multiple viewpoints. There are no multiple viewpoints here, the exchange between Jones and Batteriser exists, that is without a doubt, there is no second viewpoint saying it doesn't exist. You are attempting to apply DUE to an issue of how much coverage to give an item within a particular article. You quote one sentence of DUE/NOR policy, but fail to include the limiting sentence that immediately precedes it:
 * "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
 * This has to do with not making, for example, that some few people still claim the Earth is flat, so much coverage in an article on Earth, that readers may give conclude that that view is more prominent than it actually is. This is entirely different from you deciding that the Batteriser exchange doesn't deserve X amount of space because it's not very important. Relative weight of different sections of an article is certainly a concern, but it is not necesarily a DUE consideration - when sections of an article become exceedingly long and detailed, based on reliable sources, we create spin-off articles.


 * "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Sure, but the verifiable Jones-Batteriser media exchange is obviously suitable for an article about Jones and his media. This is where the often repeated PAG instruction, use common sense, comes in. --Tsavage (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ronz quotes: "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." That's from WP:NOT. But the "inclusion" being talked about there is as standalone articles. Here's that sentence in context from WP:NOT:


 * "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not: [...] News reports..."


 * (emphasis added.) This clearly is talking about development of "stand-alone articles", not content within articles. Once again I will state that I do not think Wikipedia should have a stand-alone article on the Batteriser controversy. I hope that that satisfies the concerns over this issue. But nobody is proposing that, so the quotation from WP:NOT is inapplicable. There is nothing there that requires or even encourages reduction of the existing content as requested by this RFC.


 * Even if we do consider the text in WP:NOT to apply here, there is nothing I can see there that definitively says that the existing text on the Batteriser controversy is unwarranted or excessive. Remember, the flip side of "not all verifiable events are suitable inclusion in Wikipedia" is "... but some are." We're left with "two commenters think the existing text is excessive, others don't." No P or G definitively supports the "it's excessive" conclusion, therefore Ronz's is not a PAG-based argument. It's just his personal opinion, stemming naturally from his belief (as repeatedly stated in the AFD discussions) that this article should not exist at all.
 * And if we do apply WP:NOT to this small item of content within this article, then we have to say that this phrase in the above-quoted text:
 * "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within Wikipedia's coverage"
 * clearly supports the retention of the "recent" text, which is "current and up-to-date information", "within Wikipedia's coverage", i.e., within the existing David L. Jones article. The proposed reduction would make it less up-to-date. Jeh (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * POV applies to all content. When sources are poor, any mention of a viewpoint may be undue. Promotional material might not have a specific guideline as WP:FRINGE does, but it still applies.
 * NOT applies to all content. WP:N is specific to article inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Your claim that "NOT applies to all content" is belied by the text I quoted from NOT, which is the text you're trying to use to support your position, and which uses the word "article" to describe its area of applicability not once but twice. Even if we accept that NOT applies here, your argument is basically raising FUD. "When sources are poor..." begs the question: it has not been established that the sources are poor, that is simply your assertion, which you're trying to slip past us here as a proven point. "Any mention of a viewpoint may be undue" - yes, it might; but then again, it might not be. In this case there is no viewpoint being promoted here. We're not saying Jones was right (or wrong) about Batteriser or commenting on his actions in any way. There is only a series of events being reported. Jeh (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Similarly, re NPOV, you claim there are NPOV issues. But there can only be a NPOV issue if there are well-referenced points of view contrary to those presented in, but not included in, the article. Again, I don't think the article is presenting any point of view here, it is just relating a series of events. But if it is the case that a POV is being excluded, the correct action is to include it (with, of course, references), not to eviscerate the existing text. So: What are these other points of view that you claim the article is currently ignoring? Wringing your hands and saying "since the sources are not good enough by my evaluation, there may be POV issues" is not at all sufficient and cannot be used to justify exclusion of material. Jeh (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP says otherwise. It tells us to follow all content policies strictly, and to remove any material that is poorly sourced. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Follow all content policies strictly" - that's fine, but I claim that your interpretation of the content policies in question (NOT and POV) is flawed. "Poorly sourced" is also just your interpretation. Jeh (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the original version is too detailed. However, I think the proposed one is a bit too short; I think it should mention that Jones was responding to information published in a news article.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Anne Delong: Not to argue against your opinion, but to provide context, please check the comment above at 23:05, 19 November 2015. The first version presented in this RfC is in fact an interim draft, providing only a partial description of the events, on the way to writing up concise and comprehensive coverage, as summarized in that comment. The whole thing can be set out in no more text than what is given to partial coverage in the version here, and fine tuning of details would normally be done on a completed version; however, editing has ground to a halt due to many weeks of continual and (IMO) vaguely stated challenges like this RfC. --Tsavage (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was drawn here by a ping to the RFC. The proposal appeared very specific to me, and I made a specific suggestion for an addition to it, one easily sourced to a news report. I have no particular interest in this topic, but I am generally in favour of keeping articles concise as opposed to detailed, and adding a reference to a news report, magazine article or book with additional details if the reader wants more.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

μWatch
Recent version: Recently, the stated :"In 2008, Jones released the µWatch, a scientific calculator watch in kit form, which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400, the last available scientific calculator watch since 1985. Engadget ' and bit-tech' published positive reviews. The µWatch may be built from off-the-shelf parts following DIY instructions. It has a 16-bit processor and 64K of flash memory, and uses open source software. '"

Proposed version: "In 2008 Jones published open source plans for the 'µWatch', a scientific calculator watch in kit form, which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400,"

Should one of these (the current or proposed content) be included in the article? If so, which? --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * INCLUDE proposed version ゼーロ (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include proposed version: From the sourcing, μWatch appears worth noting, so we should include something. The current version appears undue, and its identifying reviews rather than using them as sources is unencyclopedic. It's unclear from the sources and discussions what was "released" and when, placing the Murph 2008 reference in question as to if and how it should be used. The proposed version has none of these problems, and can be easily expanded upon if needed. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * REJECT change: Proposed version excludes fact that Jones sold parts kits as well as releasing plans and microcode for free. Jeh (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * CHANGE to proposed version, with the expectation that "open source plans" would subsequently be modified to "open source plans and microcode": Though reviews might demonstrate professional critical reaction, both "reviews" listed are actually previews, and I've been unable to find anything significant (though this from Elektor is a possibility). The kit is a kit, but it's not bags of components and a blank PCB. Proposed version + modification covers User:Jeh's objections ("kit form" implies parts sold;"open source" implies released for free). undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  02:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Retain existing version with reversion of "positive reviews" edit The Recent version under consideration here was not the version of the text under discussion for weeks, "positive reviews" was an editor's trim down edit that interpreted attributed quotes from Engadget and bit-tech as "positive reviews." Engadget, bit-tech, and Elektor are all reputable publications, and bit-tech and Elektor did full-length articles on the μWatch. Balanced, neutral editing (NPOV) suggests that we include mention of this significant media coverage, unless there is a clearly stated, policy-based reason why we should not. --Tsavage (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Industry reception
Proposed content #1: Jones' exhaustive reviews, antics and pranks, and irreverent style have garnered a range of reactions from product manufacturers.


 * Microchip Technology responded to one of Jones' largely negative reviews with a self-satirizing YouTube video spoof, responding to the design criticisms.
 * Tektronix collaborated with Jones on a April Fools prank video concerning a minor effect of gravity on the accuracy of one of their products.
 * Silicon Labs embedded the EEVBlog Tiny Gecko review episode on their web site, and recommended it as a good video guide to their product.
 * Extech Instruments responded to praise from Jones with a press release covering in detail the "exhaustive" EEVBlog product comparison.
 * On their web site, Cypress Semiconductor noted that Jones' had unpackaged their PSoC 5LP product in an EEVBlog "Mailbag" segment, and encourage readers to request a product review.

Proposed content #2: Jones' exhaustive reviews, antics and pranks, and irreverent style have been the subject of reactions from product manufacturers.

In "EEVblog #39 - Microchip PICkit 3 Programmer/Debugger Review" (9:54), Jones published a negative evaluation of the PICkit 3, commenting:
 * "I reckon management took over ... designed it by committee, how can we do it different ... these MBA management types, that's what they're trained to do. ... So they completely dropped support for the really cool external programmer software ... and I don't reckon we'll ever get it back. Why? Because some dickhead manager at Microchip ... will never admit they're wrong. That dickhead is probably going to get promoted, too. ... I tried to find something good about this compared to the PICkit 2 but I can't really, it's worse in almost every respect. It wins the EEVBlog Retarded Product of the Week Award."

Days later, Microchip Technology replied on YouTube with a spoof video, "Microchip Response to PICkit 3 Review from EEVblog #39" (7:40), where a fictional newly-hired manager with an MBA, D. Head (identified later in the video as Dick), reduces product quality and forces consumers to pay for upgrades in order to increase profits; the design engineers fight back by improving the product, and Mr. Head is eventually fired. In a follow-up EEVblog episode, Jones gave Microchip his first Flying Pig Award, described receiving a phone call from Microchip CEO, Steve Sanghi ("thanking me for raising the issues"), and commented, "It really is incredible that a multi-billion dollar huge corporation like Microchip Technologies would actually care about what someone like me says in my blog."

Extech Instruments covered the results of "EEVblog #91 - $50 Multimeter Shootout - Extech EX330, Amprobe AM220, Elenco, Vichy VC99, GS Pro-50" in a product press release, commenting on Jones' "candor, humor" and "characteristically irreverent and off-the-cuff style," and the "exhaustive 54-minute episode." The release includes frame grabs from the episode, and quotes liberally from the review.

Silicon Labs embedded the "EEVblog #269 - Energy Micro Tiny Gecko" (29:54) review in a company blog post, "EFM32 Tiny Gecko meets EEVblog," with the caption, "Not sure where to start ... ? Here is a good video guide made by David L. Jones from EEVblog ... an electronics engineering video blog showing how to test various electronics design products in a unique and enthusiastic way."

Tektronix supported Jones' concept for a 2015 April Fool's prank, resulting in "eevBLAB #8 - New Tektronix AGO3000 Oscilloscope" (8:24), an EEVBlog preview of an imaginary new product featuring a "mechanical, gravitational field sensor" intended to compensate for the effect of gravity on precise measurements (a real but non-problematic phenomenon), with Jones commenting, “Awesome, Tektronix leading the field yet again. Gravity compensation. Look out for gravity compensation."

Proposed content #3:"* Microchip Technology staff responded to Jones' largely negative review with a self-satirizing YouTube video, responding to the design criticisms."

Should one of these be included in the article? If so, which? --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * INCLUDE proposed content #3 ゼーロ (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exclude: Exclude as poorly sourced, promotional trivia inappropriate in a BLP. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include proposed content #1. Each item is perfectly well sourced and presents the facts as described in the source with no neutrality issues. Jeh (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include #1 as closest of the choices provided. Manufacturer reactions to the reviews -- positive and negative -- are relevant to EEVBlog. My preference would be for the fifth point and (probably) the fourth to be clipped, for the puffery to be reduced, and and for things to be paragraphed as follows:
 * Jones's reviews have garnered a range of reactions from product manufacturers. For example, Silicon Labs recommended EEVBlog's Tiny Gecko review episode as a good video guide to their product and embedding it on their website, while Extech Instruments released a press release detailing the "exhaustive" EEVBlog product comparison. Microchip Technology responded to design criticisms in a largely-negative review with a self-satirizing YouTube video spoof.
 * 
 * undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk) 03:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Include #1 with expanded Microtek coverage, as it was a significantly more involved reaction than the others. --Tsavage (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
If there is no agreement then I will change my vote to exclude. ゼーロ (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Closing RfC
If no-one else objects I'll close this one. It seems like there is agreement and no desire to debate it further. ゼーロ (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't. There's no hurry and it would be better than someone independent of the disputes close it. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No comments have been received other than from people who have been on this talk page since long before the "RFC". The point of an RFC is to gain input from those not already involved in the dispute. An RFC that has attracted no, or an insignificant number of, outside comments is therefore null and void and should be closed as "no conclusion". Jeh (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

EEVBlog
Currently, the article contains a section titled "EEVBlog" states:"EEVBlog was launched as a YouTube channel on 4 April 2009. As of November 2015, the channel includes over 900 videos, has more than 290,000 subscribers, and a total of over 50 million views, recently averaging over 65,000 views per day;"

Proposed alternative:"The EEVBlog YouTube channel was started on 4 April 2009."

Should this content be included on the EEVBlog, regardless whether or not the Batteriser subsection is included? --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * INCLUDE proposed alternative ゼーロ (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include proposed alternative I am unclear how all the stats are encyclopedic in any way, while they are clearly promotional. The section should have a basic description of the blog, especially if any are available from secondary sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include proposed alternative - Subscribers, views, and views per day are too promotional. Users are always attempting to add these types of statistics to articles but they are almost always removed. Meatsgains (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include broadly descriptive viewership statistics It violates neutrality policy (WP:NPOV) to exclude reliably sourced information that provides basic description of the subject, for selectively subjective reasons like, "it's promotional." Significant to describing any type of media is how many people a property reaches: circulation of a newspaper or magazine, box office revenue for a film, ratings for a TV show, subscribers for a cable channel, chart positions and sales awards for a music release, number of visitors, subscribers and views for web sites and streaming audio/video programs - we can't make odd exceptions for (commercial) online media. See: Template:Infobox YouTube personality. --Tsavage (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include some viewership statistics I agree that viewership is relevant to coverage of video based content, and can be included in ways that are very much not promotional, but I don't feel that going so in depth as to cite his average views per day as of a randomly selected date is necessary. I think that his subscriber count is descriptive enough, and the total views/views per day stats can be removed.(comment added by User:Tpdwkouaa at this diff)
 * Retain existing text Every movie article here cites box-office numbers, "Rotten Tomatoes" ratings, etc. Every TV article cites viewer statistics ("Nielsen" ratings or etc.). A great many articles on books include copies sold, number of weeks on on best-seller lists, etc. There is no specific policy or guideline that states that such things are "clearly promotional". Why are the equivalent stats "too promotional" here? Jeh (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep most of current version, clipping the average. Per User:Tsavage's para, Template:Infobox YouTube personality is applicable. Viewership/subscriber stats are part of that infobox, hence by (some) current community standard deemed relevant, and should be retained (unless/until said community standard changes). undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  03:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
The viewership statistics are verified only with a primary source, demonstrating no encyclopedic value. For anyone to claim they belong, we need a secondary source to demonstrate the claim is not OR, that the information is DUE, and that it is something other than SOAP. Otherwise it violates WP:BLPPRIMARY.

WP:BLPPRIMARY states, "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ronz: This seems like a tortured interpretation of BLPPRIMARY, which augments WP:PRIMARY, not supercedes it (the section begins with a See also link to WP:PRIMARY). This has already been discussed: BLP is concerned with taking extra care with content that may directly affect an individual's life, such that it might hurt their reputation, invade their privacy, or otherwise cause them harm. BLPPRIMARY specifically says:
 * "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."
 * That is the entire section, you only quoted the second half. It is referring to sensitive primary source material, not to wide open, non-controversial material like viewership stats published on YouTube, or reported on by a web stats service. WP:PRIMARY is clear on general inclusion standards:
 * "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
 * "For anyone to claim they belong, we need a secondary source to demonstrate the claim is not OR" Here you're into a totally different argument than BLP, the OR claim being that if a secondary source doesn't mention viewership, then we can't. That would hold true if viewership stats were some sort of opinion or conclusion, in fact, they're just a straightforward property of the media that has been deemed noteworthy. WP:OR is clear on this:
 * "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. ... The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."
 * Viewership stats are straightforward facts (per the source), whether reported on from a reliable primary or secondary source. Also, I believe the stats are cited to a stats tracking service, which is a secondary source. --Tsavage (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "not supercedes it" I disagree. BLP does indeed supersede it. BLP places additional requirements to sourcing, content, and dispute resolution. --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, "additional requirements" for potentially controversial or damaging content about living people. If BLPPRIMARY superseded (took the place of) PRIMARY, it wouldn't start by linking to PRIMARY, it would say that it supersedes it. What it does say is that it concerns primary sources used to "support assertions about a living person" - as a definitions, that does not include statements of fact about the viewership of an online video program. BLP has a clear and obvious intent, spirit, and purpose, and that is not to protect people from YouTube viewership stats. --Tsavage (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is poor. BLP requires we use better. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "The source is poor" is only your evaluation, not established fact. Jeh (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

writes: "Subscribers, views, and views per day are too promotional. Users are always attempting to add these types of statistics to articles but they are almost always removed." Please. Every movie article here cites box-office numbers, "Rotten Tomatoes" ratings, etc. Every TV article cites viewer ratings. A great many articles on books include copies sold, number of weeks on on best-seller lists, etc. There is no specific policy or guideline that states that such things are "too promotional". And the notion that viewer stats dispassionately gathered by computer programs require a secondary source to comment on them before we can include them is absurd. Jeh (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes and Nielsen. Note that they are notable and well-sourced for the specific purposes of box-office numbers for movies and viewer estimates for tv. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * SocialBlade is well-sourced for this purpose. And your reply is an attempt at deflection, as it does not address my question: How is it that stats for one type of media are acceptable but stats for a YouTube channel are somehow inherently "promotional"? Or is it that stats from SocialBlade are somehow inherently "promotional"? If so, how is that? Failure to address my question strongly suggests that you know you don't have a good answer. Jeh (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage's argument is novel but clearly ridiculous. The stats don't increase the NPOV, let alone being required by it. Including them would require some expansion and explanation. Are the numbers impressive or mediocre? I did a bit of research but couldn't find much, beyond eevblog's subscribers being far too few to get near the top 5000 channels.

Including these numbers really seems like a poor attempt to deceive the reader into thinking that they are somehow indicative of success. I expect none of their advocates would be happy if we added a line about the channel failing to reach the top 5000, to maintain NPOV of course.

Note that the stats are incomplete too, since EEVblog is now available on other sites like Vimeo, so as a measure of views and popularity they suck. ゼーロ (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ゼーロ: These are more grasping arguments:
 * "The stats don't increase the NPOV, let alone being required by it" Not what was said. I said that selective omission of stats violates NPOV. We can't generally include media stats in articles, which we do, indicating wide consensus that they belong, and then exclude them for particular properties, because they've suddenly become "promotional."
 * "Including them would require some expansion and explanation. Are the numbers impressive or mediocre?" Not a requirement. The stats are basic attributes of the subject, they don't inherently require explanation. Additional context provided by a ranking number is useful. The Alexa rank for the EEVBlog web site (which you or Ronz removed) is such a ranking. Your argument appears to be that stats should only be included if they are somehow exceptional on their own...which is ridiculous: we have determined the subject notable, after that, any verifiable, reasonably descriptive information about that subject is to some degree noteworthy.
 * "I expect none of their advocates would be happy if we added a line about the channel failing to reach the top 5000" What exactly are you speculating about and why? The stats aren't there to indicate that the subject is notable, they're there because they describe the subject. As mentioned, the Alexa ranking was included - #56,359 global, at the moment - and you removed it. As for YouTube, number of subscribers for the most-subscribed YouTube channels are in the multiple millions - it's a long-tail number and ranking down the tail, while interesting, isn't all that meaningful on its own (long-tail indicating that a relatively small change in actual traffic can cause a seemingly huge jump in ranking the lower in rankings you go).
 * "Note that the stats are incomplete too, since eevblog's is now available on other sites like Video" And? That's the equivalent of saying that US box office figures for a movie are incomplete (and therefore shouldn't be included), because the film is also playing in the UK. The basic stats should be the most comprehensive available. Those in the article clearly refer to the YouTube channel, the original, main and best-known outlet.
 * Nothing you've argued holds up in the least. --Tsavage (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * SocialBlade is a redlink. Rotten Tomatoes and Nielsen are not. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And? Pointed out to you earlier (00:03, 28 October 2015), Google News "SocialBlade" (sometimes, "Social Blade") to find it quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Variety, Business Insider, Forbes, New York Daily News, Global TV, Washington Post, NDTV, Daily Mail, MTV, ABC News, USA Today, and a significant number of other reputable media. I think it is safe to conclude that, between all of these media organizations, which include the leading business and entertainment industry news vehicles, enough third-party verification of SocialBlade as a reliable source has been done to meet our standards of verifiability. --Tsavage (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * US box office figures are a key metric by which movies are measured in the industry. Failure to perform often has negative repercussions for those involved in the movie, and can lead to things like sequels being cancelled. A lot of effort goes into gathering and reporting those statistics in a way that reflects this importance. In fact the Rotten Tomatoes score is an aggregate of critics' scores, not a simple raw statistic but an average opinion formed by mostly reliable sources. You can't compare either to raw YouTube stats.
 * You haven't addressed the issue of the stats being difficult for the reader to interpret either. Raw data like the physical size of something is easy to compare and visualize. Movie box office stats are widely published and can easily be compared with the cost of making the movie. YouTube stats are not well understood by most people, and require interpretation to be of any use. Other editors have voiced similar concerns - that their inclusion appears to be merely an attempt to make the channel look successful and thereby promote it.
 * Finally, try to avoid OR. YouTube is "the original, main and best-known outlet"? Says who? Are you sure there are not significant numbers of viewers elsewhere? What argument would you make against including Daily Motion and Vimeo stats too, if any? ゼーロ (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * None of the article's detractors have bothered to respond to the question of why they deem the stats here to be "promotional", let alone "too promotional", when similar - agreed, not exactly the same - stats for other media are not. Jeh (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I did respond to that question in the paragraphs you replied to. ゼーロ (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You did not address why consumption statistics for online media are "promotional" when the same stats for TV, movies, books, music, and every other medium, are not considered promotional. Your convoluted arguments appear to be grasping at anything that might help to suppress content in this article. Why don't you (and Ronz) take this YouTube stats are promotional argument to the PewDiePie article, which affects way more Wikipedia readers than this article, and fight to remove the BLP promotional YouTube stuff, starting with the entire "YouTube information" infobox section with its "Subscribers 40.9 million (December 2015)."--Tsavage (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've made my case, I won't be sealioned or prolong the RfC any further. Other editors can read what we wrote and make their own decisions. ゼーロ (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on RfC as a whole

 * Comment - Summoned by bot. This RFC is way to complex to answer. Break it down on separate RFCs if you need to, otherwise it is unlikely you will get a good response. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't recall one like this that went well, but it was recommended by a neutral editor. We'll see how it goes. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Point of fact: The DRN moderator did not recommend an RfC, he brought it up in a list of possibilities and asked how the parties felt about that avenue: "is each of the editors willing to agree to rely on Requests for Comments on the inclusion or exclusion of the questioned material?" Ronz, you were the only editor to unequivocally favor this approach ("RfCs are standard dispute resolution tools, and I cannot imagine why RfCs shouldn't be used."), while doubts or no commment were expressed by all other parties. So you are actually following through on your own preferred course, in a multi-part format that was argued against, even while admitting doubt in its effectiveness. --Tsavage (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * WHat do you propose we do otherwise? You already rejected further arbitration and didn't propose an RfC of your own design. There isn't anything else left. ゼーロ (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The next logical step has always been clear (at least, to me), and I've mentioned it, also, why I hesitate to take it because I don't want to clog up site-wide resources - editors' time - carrying on what I see as personal agendas being acted out through editing.


 * Content challenges have to come down to actionable specifics. Each challenge has to isolated, and then taken first to an appropriate noticeboard, and if no clear result, to an RfC. Undue weight is not open-ended and up to editor opinion, ultimately, if something is reliably sourced, that sourcing establishes sufficient weight for noteworthiness, and if the item is not obviously trivial or otherwise unencyclopedic (as covered under other PAGs, like WP:ISNOT), then the question is only of wording. At the point where it's a matter of wording, and editors still insist on forcing specific views through editing, behavioral policies against edit warring and reversion come into play.


 * This is standard procedure, but with the number of challenges being made, we would have perhaps dozens of individual noticeboard/RfC queries. For example, "is Engadget a reliable source for X," would be one item. "Is bit-tech a reliable source for Y," is another. And so forth.


 * One other, more nuclear approach, is to bring this to AN/I as a case of long-term disruptive editing, but that is an even bigger time-drain and overall headache-inducing prospect.


 * The way forward by PAGs is not unclear, it is just...unappealing. --Tsavage (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, okay, but you didn't do any of that and are now complaining about what did happen. ゼーロ (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm following the process. Four editors appear to be hugely committed to this article about an essentially non-controversial subject, which I think it is safe to say holds little to no interest to the vast majority of other editors. As one of those four editors, I'm trying to resolve things within the group, without distracting others, in particular because IMO these are not serious content issues, the arguing itself overshadows what is being argued about.


 * Talk discussion went to DRN at your suggestion (I believe, or Ronz's, or both), where I participated because I was not familiar with that DR option (I am now), and it was completely ineffective in this case, except, it gave rise to this sprawling RfC. You proposed formal mediation, Ronz quite promptly refused to participate, so I did not have to decide on that. And now I am respecting the RfC, insofar as politely commenting on it, as it seems to be the thing that at least two of the four editors, who are also the ones generally opposing my views, are involved with. I'm also patiently waiting - another recommended course - rather than possibly encouraging some sort of edit warring by committing changes. Does that answer your comment? I'm waiting on you. And Ronz. --Tsavage (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you expect will happen when the RfC finishes? ゼーロ (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm already continuing to edit. This RfC cannot find consensus for locking in an article to specific information and wordings of text. Certainly not on this vague basis. As you've seen, I'm continuing to edit as time permits, and, having exhausted other means, I will reluctantly use the noticeboards for very specific queries, and prepare a full complaint for AN/I if there is undue reversion. I'm trying to see how our system works when fully played out, and I think patient discussion has been given a good run. --Tsavage (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfC seems to be gaining some traction from other editors. Please engage with it and respect the outcome, which is going to conflict with your edits. Please respect that other editors have made their opinions clear, even if you disagree with them out think they fail on technical grounds. There is still time to comment and vote. ゼーロ (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Please engage with it and respect the outcome, which is going to conflict with your edits." How do you know the outcome? --Tsavage (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't, but all possible outcomes at this point conflict with your edits, unless you somehow manage to get the RfC cancelled which I feel is unlikely. I hope that clarifies. ゼーロ (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the versions here I didn't write, and the majority aren't even in the article. At worst, we get local consensus on some random version, and that is used to argue more, meanwhile, a local RfC can't override wider consensus, which is most immediately represented by the PAGs. There are no actionable PAG-based challenges here, "pick one" means nothing, --Tsavage (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that you will ignore the result of the RfC if it does not go the way you think it should, because your interpretation of policy differs from that of the editors who voted a different way. Presumably you plan to resume your edit war when the RfC is translated into edits.
 * Obviously, I'm sure everyone wishes to avoid this. It seems like the consensus is against you here, but you won't accept that. You rejected moderation. How do you hope to resolve this situation? Simply edit warring and sealioning until other editors grow tired is not a good plan.
 * Please suggest something other than "keep arguing until everyone agrees with me", that incorporates the consensus reached by other editors. ゼーロ (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The RfC does not pose a clearly actionable question, as far as policy- and guideline-based issues - based on what criteria is a choice between versions supposed to be made? --Tsavage (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Any criteria you like. Make your argument, see if it gains any traction. The time for moaning about the RfC content has passed. ゼーロ (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Split RfC: I just noticed this split of an RfC in an article under ArbCom enforcement. Any objections to doing the same? --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going ahead with the splitting. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding sources and this article
There have been repeated challenges and deletions by Ronz, based on a general assertion that most of the sourcing is poor, and does not well-support the content. In fact, the large majority of the 20+ items in References are print and electronic publications from reputable publishers, with (as of this version) five out of 23 referring to Jones' own sites. Those five are all used for straightforward, non-controversial, non-interpretative statements. Among the secondary sources, there are no blogs from unknown authors, self-published media, or anything of the sort. And none of the material is remotely contentious, in any way, positive, negative or otherwise.

So what's the problem?

Looking at three months of discussion, the best I can manage in figuring out if there is indeed an actual underlying reasoning, is that many of the sources do not cover the subject in enough depth - as in, article length, word count - as Ronz would like.

For example, some content in the article was taken from the lead paragraph of a full-chapter interview with Jones, in a book of interviews.

A discussion was had here weeks ago on this subject, where the argument was made that length alone doesn't determine the reliability of a source. There is no presumption that a reputable publisher will take any less editorial care with a single-sentence caption, or a 150-word blurb, than they would with a thousand-word article, as far as fact-checking and so forth, the process that makes a publisher reputable.

In addition, every notable BLP subject is not Elon Musk, we can't expect the reams of media coverage that we are accustomed to for celebrities and other high-profile figures, for every BLP. WP:RS advises us that sourcing guidelines are "best treated with common sense," which in this case, means judging sources appropriate to the subject, case-by-case. The notability requirement for "significant coverage" {WP:GNG) concerns having enough secondary source material directly about the subject to write a reasonably in-depth standalone article, not "half a paragraph" or "only a few sentences" (WP:WHYN), and that is the only application concerning source length in determining notability.

If we can assemble a well-sourced, accurate article from multiple smaller reliable sources, this is as valid and verifiable as an article written based on one or two feature-length articles.

As far as RS, the common sense bottom line is: Does this article appear to be factually accurate based on the cited sources, and do those sources each appear to be reliable for the cited material? If we can meet that standard, then the article is reliably sourced for Wikipedia. --Tsavage (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Primarily it isn't about reliability, but the quality: we've few independent sources, few secondary sources, no source with significant coverage of Jones, and not much better coverage of EEVBlog.
 * This has been discussed ad nauseum. There's nothing new here. Ignoring relevant policies and discussions will not get us any further. --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ronz, let's look a how your statements coincide with what is actually there. You say: we've few independent sources, few secondary sources, no source with significant coverage of Jones, and not much better coverage of EEVBlog" As of the current version, the article contains:


 * 20 unique sources.
 * 17 independent sources - not affiliated with Jones, 14 are print and electronic publications, plus Kickstarter, SocialBlade, Hackaday
 * 14 secondary sources - 13 print and electronic publications, plus SocialBlade media tracking
 * 3 Jones primary sources - YouTube channel, EEVBlog web site, uWatch site - all used for straight facts like year channel created, etc
 * 3 independent primary sources - Kickstarter, Silicon Chip magazine, Hackaday, for straightforward facts like published articles by Jones


 * You mention "significant coverage," ignoring the previous comment where it is explained to you that "significant coverage" has no PAG relevance here, since the article already exists: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. (WP:WHYN) This article is AfD keep, notability has been established, "significant coverage" is not a concern. All sources cover the content they're cited to, clearly and directly, that's all the "significance" required.


 * This has all been discussed in detail with you weeks ago (the diffs are there for extracting). You continue to ignore PAGs and put forward vague assertions, and accusations of disruption and ignoring policy. This is no way to edit. --Tsavage (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should review the sources more closely. The last time we did, it was clear that some editors didn't understand what independent and primary meant, nor the difference between the two.
 * Significant coverage is most definitely an issue for NOT and NPOV.
 * So can we break down the sources to see where you got your numbers from, and if anyone else agrees? --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why all the preamble? I got my numbers from the References section, with counting and arithmetic. If you have issues with them, to support your sourcing challenge - we've few independent sources, few secondary sources, no source with significant coverage of Jones, and not much better coverage of EEVBlog" - please proceed, we've been waiting for months. --Tsavage (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you won't support your assertions, it might be best not to make them.
 * I'll be happy to go over them all, once the editing environment here begins to approach something that meets our behavioral policies and guidelines. I think a cool-down period is more important at this time. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to go over them all, once the editing environment here begins to approach something that meets our behavioral policies and guidelines The environment is pretty calm, this sounds like more stonewalling rather than simply addressing issues in a straightforward way, and only four editors are involved. At this point, you are indicating that the main problem is behavioral, so it may be best to take this to AN/I. What do you think? --Tsavage (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"this sounds like more stonewalling" Good example of the problems here. --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How else might you refer to a new reason - suggesting a vague "cool-down period" - to not answer a straightforward request to clarify your objection to sources? Especially when that has been the demonstrable pattern for weeks (it's exhausting just to think of assembling and sorting diffs). --Tsavage (talk)
 * Indeed. Ronz, you continue to play a game of Nomic. Now, out of the blue, in place of a response to a reasonable question, asked politely, we have your declaration that you won't participate in talk page discussion because the "editing environment" is so bad... in your opinion. Apparently in your estimation the environment does not even "begin to approach" something that meets e.g. WP:CIVIL. Come now, Ronz. If it was really that bad you'd have had ample fodder for an AN/I case months ago. So: Either provide on-point answers to reasonable and civilly asked questions; or open one or two AN/I cases; or go away and leave this article to people who are not trying to delete it a little bit at a time. Jeh (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hahahahahahahahahaha, Nomic. And it's even online. If you suddenly stop seeing me on this page, you'll know where I am instead. --Tsavage (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor, I would agree with the fact that this talk page and editing environment are definitely bordering on uncivil, with both sides being careful not to explode and get banned. I would suggest that BOTH parties take some time away from editing this page, and let others take a look at it. While keeping Wikipedia current and NPOV is important, having four editors spend so much time on one article which is definitely not high on the list of articles needing work is ridiculous. Everyone is free to contribute where they like, I grant that, but on a personal level, wouldn't it be more satisfying to work together, and have real positive changes done to an article? If you can't find that here, why keep digging at it, unless some personal attachment or emotional connection is pushing both sides? I don't understand it at all. There are plenty of other editors who would be willing to pitch in. I was thinking about it, until I scanned through this talk page and threw up my hands. Who would want to step into the middle of a slowly simmering edit war? A ir ♠  C ombat  What'sup, dog? 12:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It pretty much has been left alone for over a month. I still don't think the neutrality tag is justified, but leaving it seems like a lot less hassle than starting another round of comments. And other than that I'm content to leave the article pretty much as it is, except for updating video counts and so on now and then. Maybe raise the NPOV tag question at WP:NPOVN? Jeh (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

POV Tag

 * Hello, sorry about the confusion with the POV tag. I assumed that since there doesn't seem to be a reason for it given anywhere in the talk page that there was no reason for it. Clearly that isn't the case, as there's a lot of discussion about it here, but I can't actually find the specific issue detailed anywhere. What exactly is it? It'd be nice to get it resolved, which I'm sure wouldn't be hard. Thx, Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article either needs to be trimmed to what encyclopedic content can be gleaned from the poor sources we currently have (per NOT and BLP), or rewritten from better sources. BLP requires that poorly sourced material be removed until there is consensus for its inclusion, but that policy has been outright ignored here, hence he tag. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. From glancing at the References, it would seem that the article might suffer from overreliance on primary sources. Perhaps that tag would be more appropriate.
 * If we break down the references, we find that 9 are primaries from Davey boy himself (or otherwise very close to him), 6 are from what I would say are reputable and independent sources (specifically Apress, Sydney Morning Herald, VentureBeat, IBT, and Make), 7 are from semi-reputable but relevant tech mags or publications, and 2 more are just bleh. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no blanket restriction on the use of, or number of, or percentage of, etc., primary sources, only that they be used carefully. You can't just count up the primary source references and say "that's too many". That a claim such as "Jones said x" is only supported by a primary source does not mean it has to be removed. A quote from something published by Jones in which he did say x, although a primary source, is completely sufficient for such a claim as long as it is framed in the article as a quote from Jones. A secondary source would be required for a judgment about the quote, but that's not what we're talking about. There are adequate secondary and tertiary sources for the claims here that require them.
 * Moreover, a claim of non-NPOV is not supportable unless there is reason to believe there is some other point of view that is well-represented in secondary or tertiary sources but is not represented, or is under-represented, in the article. No such other POV has ever been offered. One editor above did make a vague accusation that the article ~"does not fairly represent negative aspects of Jones' work" (that is my paraphrase) but did not suggest what those aspects might be, let alone provide any references to support the accusation. Jeh (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose the ref breakdown isn't really necessary. I'm not implying anything other than that this article may qualify as relying on too many primary sources, which (if you'll forgive my quantitativity) are a plurality. My interpretation is that the perceived non-neutrality is based on the abundance of these primary sources, and I was wondering if agreed with my analysis (as he mentioned "poor sources"), so the breakdown of references was to see if I could identify which sources were poor. Hope that makes sense/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the correct approach would be to look at each use of a primary source to see if it complies with the ~"must be used with caution" provisions of WP:PRIMARY. (There isn't any limit on the number, percentage, etc., of such primary-sourced claims either.)
 * I still can't figure out why Ronz keeps pointing to WP:NOT. Jeh (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No offense Jeh, but I'm still not clear that you finally understand the difference between primary and independent sources. I see no understanding of NOT's requirement for quality sources (secondary, independent, third-party), nor how NOT problems are resolved by applying NPOV with quality sources in the areas identified in NOT. I'm happy to fill in the details for new editors, but at this point it's clear that my explanations have fallen on deaf ears in the past disputes.

There are multiple ways a source can be poor. Being unreliable is one, and we're pushing that with the interviews where we use the introductions as third-party sources. The blatant problem though is that we just don't have much information in the sources: "Jones is an Australian video blogger. Sometimes his video's have received some attention. His video blog seems popular within the popular electronics community." There's not much else, and the details (as sourced) tend into NOT areas. As a result, we have very little info on Jones, so the article has been padded with information about projects and Batteriser.

Of course, the burden rests on those arguing for inclusion, per BLP. When we started by looking at what sources demonstrate notability, we agreed that the sources were so poor that introductions in interviews would have to be used. After that, editors decided to stop following BLP. There are no tags for BLP problems like this, because BLP puts the burden on inclusion. Of course we've so far decided to just not follow that part of BLP.

Maybe we can start following BLP now. I've quickly gone through the first half of the article, trimming back most of the problems. I didn't go back through the discussions to ensure I found all that have been identified. If anything needs to be restored, let's get consensus to do so first per BLP. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on David L. Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.siliconchip.com.au%2Fcms%2FA_111243%2Farticle.html&date=2016-01-22 with http://www.webcitation.org/6ejLsXEvY?url=http://archive.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_111243/article.html on http://archive.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_111243/article.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6eRA5bUlU?url=http://www.siliconchip.com.au/Issue/2009/April/Build+A+Microcurrent+DMM+Adaptor to http://www.siliconchip.com.au/Issue/2009/April/Build+A+Microcurrent+DMM+Adaptor
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fmake%2Fmeldung%2FuCurrent-Gold-Multimeter-Praezisionsadapter-2068640.html&date=2016-01-10 with http://www.webcitation.org/6eRanRC7q?url=http://www.heise.de/make/meldung/uCurrent-Gold-Multimeter-Praezisionsadapter-2068640.html on http://www.heise.de/make/meldung/uCurrent-Gold-Multimeter-Praezisionsadapter-2068640.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)