Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Jones (2nd 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 keep. The very likely canvassed IP opinions are discounted. Among the other contributors, consensus is that the notability requirements are met.  Sandstein  11:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

David L. Jones
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

DELETE The article is a stub after a large amount of primary source material was removed. The article does not meet notability guidelines. The previous AfD discussion had many fans simply stating their desire to see the article kept, rather than making any particular argument based on WP policy. After considerable time and extended discussions there seems to be little prospect of the article improving, and thus it should be deleted. ゼーロ (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Primary source material is perfectly legal in the article about the author of this primary source, and it is to be restored pronto after this AfD closes. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant to this AfD. Primary source material offers no notability nor indication of being WP:DUE. Restoring the information sourced only with primary sources, would be a BLP violation as well as NPOV and NOT. --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep (declaration of interest - I created the article). The subject is notable and is probably the most prominent video blogger within the electronic engineering community. Much of the removed material amounts to significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources confirming his position - thus WP:GNG is met. He's produced around 800 episodes of his video blog and his youtube channel has more than 283000 subscribers. The discussion forum on his website currently has 747934 posts in 50200 topics by 22702 members. This level of interest and involvement again suggests notability. There's much that could be done to improve the article, including reverting some content removals :-) SmilingFace (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no one has offered such reliable, secondary, independent sources. So far we've identified only three secondary sources, none of which demonstrate notability. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, none of what you say establishes notability and ample opportunity to provide some sources that do has been given. If you can find any such sources you should add them now. There are many other people on YouTube with large numbers of posts and subscribers, but that alone does not make them notable by Wikipedia standards. ゼーロ (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Sydney Morning Herald refers to him as an expert and says his blog is popular: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/batteriser-battery-life-extender-scam-or-saviour-20150915-gjmrql.html. He is a judge for the Hackaday prize: https://hackaday.io/prize/judges. When he criticized a product by Microchip they responded with a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YUvlrVlNao and he received a call from their CEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91iX5sUXrOoExtech Instruments took note when one of their products won his comparative review: http://www.extech.com/instruments/press.asp?pressid=06072010. Is this not significant independent coverage? SmilingFace (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Those are all primary sources except the Sydney Morning Herald, which is being misrepresented. The Sydney Morning Herald isn't sure what to make of him, calling him an expert, then pointing out his lack of expertise, then relying upon real experts to shore up the he said/she said article. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - reasonable amount of coverage in independent sources. (Disclaimer: I am not a "fan" of Jones; I posted some AFDs today, and as a routine I voted in this day as well.) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We need independent secondary sources. --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are these sources? Please add them to the article. Ample opportunity to find and provide them has been given, and a large number were found to be unsuitable and removed. ゼーロ (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was severely decimated by the heated opponents of the blogger, claiming that it was full of primary sources. I disagree with their judgement, but I am not going to restore it. Please see into the article history for themselves. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How about you WP:FOC instead, avoid taking on a battleground mentality, and follow WP:BLP? --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, please refrain from assuming bad faith. ゼーロ (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, the secondary sources listed in the article look good enough to push this past the WP:GNG, in particular a chapter in a dead tree book by Steven Osborn and an in depth interview in "Circuit Cellar", which looks to tick all of the WP:RS boxes. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
 * Those are interviews, which are primary sources, not secondary. They do give any notability whatsoever. --Ronz (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This source has been discussed at length on the talk page and ruled out as a good secondary source. ゼーロ (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The interviews may not be fine for sourcing any controversial claims made in the interviews, but they are fine for notability. If you get interviewed, the publication has clearly taken notice of you; you're notable. In addition, I'm unhappy with the nominators' actions in deleting perfectly fine additional sources from the article, for example this Sydney Morning Herald article which devotes a non-trivial amount of space to Jones, and the German edition of Make magazine, which covers one of his gadgets; while these wouldn't have been sufficient for notability in themselves, they are certainly helpful. A trouting seems called for. --GRuban (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "but they are fine for notability" Howso? It's certainly not what WP:N says about secondary sources with significant coverage. It's a primary source. Are you thinking about just the introduction? Such introductions are usually provided by the interviewee. The two other sources mentioned are discussed on the talk page, where I pointed out they should be incorporated into the article, even though they add nothing to the notability and one is embarrassingly poor. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. A source decides to devote space to an interview. Clearly that's sufficiently significant attention. They don't interview everyone and their brother. --GRuban (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been interviewed by magazines and even a TV channel for what amounts to hobby stuff. The particular interviews posted as sources have been discussed and rejected as evidence of notability and as reliable sources of information for the article. There has been ample time allowed for better sources to be provided, but none have been. This has all been examined extensively by editors who didn't just pop out of the woodwork at the last moment to object to deletion. ゼーロ (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Our notability criteria is not that of a newspaper interview, hence the need for WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS. Interviews are primary sources. Do we agree on that? WP:N requires significant coverage in a secondary source. The only thing that anyone could assert as being secondary is the introduction, but we know such introductions are often provided by the interviewee. --Ronz (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * DELETE. Does not meet Wikipedia requirement for BLP. I admire Dave, but this simply does not meet the quality requirment. It has been debated for quite a while now. Need to remove based on the policy. An interview is NOT sigificant attention and does not meet WP:BLP requirement. Dave's fan boys, please check the policy first before voting. 32.213.188.105 (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * — 32.213.188.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --GRuban (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * COMMENT Most all of the "keep" votes so far have failed to address the issues discussed at length, or establish notability. Might I suggest that unless they can produce NEW sources that have not already been rejected that they be disregarded. The whole reason for having another AfD is that the previous AfD did not reach a consensus, a bunch of fans merely piled in with support but no actual contributions or useful improvement of the article. Wikipedia is no a democracy or a popularity contest, for the article to stay it must be of reasonable quality and meet notability guidelines. ゼーロ (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * DELETE. Vote for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia WP:BLP guidelines. None of the sources cited meet notability guidelines. 4.26.51.74 (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * — 4.26.51.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jeh (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * DELETE This has been done to death, it fails on multiple fronts and there appears to be zero prospect of it ever meeting the minimum standard for notability or sources. I'd add that it used to read more like an advert for Mr. Jones' than anything else, like one of those paid editorials in a magazine. 86.2.115.144 (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * — 86.2.115.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --GRuban (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * DELETE. Agreed. There are emotions and there are facts. In this case the facts are simply not there. If you take a look at the history of the discussion you will see that the "KEEP" camp had tried hard to find support information over the last year and each time either the sources they cited were ekither weak or not reliable and would be stretch to count as secondary sources. We must put our personal emotions aside and let the rules speak for themselves. This entry needs to be deleted I order to maintain Wikipedia's standard.2600:1000:B106:6CF1:0:17:9713:4A01 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * — 2600:1000:B106:6CF1:0:17:9713:4A01 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --GRuban (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. First: The article version that should be considered is this one, before the most recent stubbing.
 * Detractors have used "BLP" (just that, without much further elaboration) to defend stubbing the article, but the primary purpose of WP:BLP is simply to ensure rock-solid sourcing for any material that could be construed as negative or controversial. There is no such material here. Yes, BLP does allow immediate removal in some cases: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", but no claim was ever made that the material removed was in any way contentious.
 * Primary sources: Many of the sources were removed for being primary, but nothing anywhere says that WP:PRIMARY sources cannot be used at all; only that they should not be misused, i.e. no OR: WP editors should not draw conclusions from them. But quoting a claimed fact as a simple statement of claimed fact shouldn't require a third party to have opined about it. For example, one deleted source is an independent-of-YouTube web site that provided view counts, subscriber counts, etc. for Jones' YouTube videos. This was deleted as being "primary". Why do we need a secondary source for such a matter-of-fact statistic? Information about Jones' participation in a couple of different events, obtained from the events' sites, was also deemed "primary" and therefore removed, because they were "primary sources about the event". Again, the only attempted use was as simple statements of fact. If the primary source was not being misused then it should not have been removed.
 * Several other points in the article were removed on the claim of their not being "notable", or as not contributing to "notability", despite at least two cites by me of WP:N, which clearly states that the notability rules do not apply to article content, only to article topics. Not everything in an article has to be independently notable.
 * Attempts to discuss any of these points were met with "argument by vigorous assertion" and even a "do not edit" edict to me.
 * Re WP:N. Considering the article in its pre-stubbing state, the General notability guideline has been cited often. Let's take it point by point:
 * "Significant coverage" is met by the two interviews. A book chapter is significant. So is a very lengthy interview in a highly regarded magazine in the field. (The claim has been made that interviews are primary sources; I'll get to that. But that's an independent requirement. They're still "significant coverage".)
 * "Reliable" asks for "editorial integrity". This too is covered by the editorial staff of the publishers (Circuit Cellar magazine and the book publisher).
 * "Sources should be secondary sources" - here is the biggest problem. I hold that while an interview is most definitely a primary source for statements made by the interviewee—they're direct quotes, after all—the fact that an extensive interview exists at all is evidence that the interview publisher considered the subject notable. Besides, this "requirement" is rather soft. It says "should be", not "must be". I'll revisit that point in a moment.
 * "Independent of the subject" - this requirement is met as neither interview was produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. This item also provides a list of examples of things that are not considered independent; "interviews" are not in that list.
 * "Presumed" - Nobody has cited any problem with the points here.
 * Conclusion re WP:N: Even if we agree that the interviews are primary sources, "should be" is not how one introduces an absolute requirement. In fact, the entire WP:N page (along with WP:PEOPLE) is not an absolute requirement. Like they say at the top: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." (emph. added)
 * I maintain that someone who has created hundreds of hours of video content (those 800+ videos? Most of them are around an hour long), is able to make a living from YouTube vblogging and related activities, has been the subject of two different extensive interviews in publications that meet WP's all of the WP:N criteria except the encouragement of "secondary", has attracted notice and generated public responses from several different electronics equipment manufacturers (including from the "Tektronix experts" at Tektronix, something I only found recently but didn't bother adding because I'm sure it would just be immediately reverted; if you're not in the field you have simply no clue as to how significant Tektronix is)... combined with all the other so-claimed "insignificant", "poor", "primary", etc., items recently deleted... is notable. Even if there have not been two largish non-interviews published about him.
 * (I suppose replies are going to show up here claiming we can't use the YouTube statistics, etc., because they're not "notable". Or they're "secondary". These miss the point.)
 * I suggest that not only should the article be kept, but that it be restored to its pre-stubbing state, and notice given thereby that the article in that state is acceptable. Jeh (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC.
 * "Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" is what we need to demonstrate notability. Interviews fail that criteria. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I find much of the material listed before the stubbing contentious. It's biased, and doesn't mention any of the negative aspects of his work, effectively white-washing. It fails to meet the standards of a WP article on many levels, already extensively discussed. Now is a bit late to start making this argument, given that there has been ample time to improve the article. ゼーロ (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What "negative aspects of his work"? I'm not denying that some might exist, but your claim assumes facts not in evidence. At no time I'm aware of were any negative comments about Jones added to the article and then removed. Examples, please? (And of course you'll have sources?) Jeh (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can provide examples from his videos, but I don't have any good sources. At least, none better than the mere fact that they exist in his videos and some people have publicly complained about them, which I'm arguing is not sufficient. Nice try though, trying to get me to contradict my own argument. ゼーロ (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about whether or not the article should be deleted. Let's not get distracted. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm only pointing out the weakness in using anything on YouTube as a source. It requires interpretation, which is unacceptable. ゼーロ (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not everything requires interpretation. A statement that person x on youtube video n said "blah" doesn't require interpretation if it's an exact quote. Similarly for the YouTube statistics. To hear you and Ronz tell it you'd need a secondary source for the statement that there are 12 inches in a foot. Jeh (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "there are 12 inches in a foot" I guess FOC is too much to ask. It's also irrelevant to the AfD discussion and disruptive. I do appreciate the irony of accusing me of not understanding the policy that covers identification and use of primary sources WP:PSTS, which also includes WP:CALC. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything I've said rises to the level of "attack" (as claimed in Ronz's edit comment), particularly since it's clearly hyperbole (you don't really think that I think you'd insist on a primary source for "12 inches in a foot", right?). But when an editor insists on removing content on flimsy bases like "it's primary" (there is no absolute rule against primary sources, only against misusing them) then that editors' rationale and subsequent actions are quite relevant to FOC.
 * Meanwhile, still waiting for justification of ゼーロ's "contentious" claim. Since that would require negative comments about Jones, and those are judgments, good secondary sources would indeed be required. Seeing none... Jeh (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "still waiting..." ゼーロ shouldn't be responding here, as it is irrelevant to this deletion discussion and just disrupts it further.--Ronz (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ゼーロ brought up the claims of "contentious", "biased", "white-washing" as a reply to my !vote. May I suggest that you don't WP:OWN this discussion any more than you do the subject article? So please stop trying to moderate it. Even if such a role existed, the fact that you are a strong proponent for deletion would disqualify you from it. Re your point: if desired, ゼーロ could add material supporting those claims to the article, if it can be secondary-sourced. And that's what I'm "still waiting" for. Of course, then the article would be less biased in ゼーロ's view, so presumably it would be more acceptable to ゼーロ. Hmm. Jeh (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show this person meets the notability criteria. Interviews, being primary sources, and do not count towards notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep A search for "David Jones EEVblog" indicates that Jones is well-known and a high-profile voice in the maker and electronic engineering community. Recognition by respected equipment maker Tektronix indicates industry credibility. Stats for EEVBlog indicate a sizable audience (285,000 subscribers; 2 million views over last 30 days, over 900 videos uploaded over five years) - billed as the world's biggest EE blog. Jones' Linkedin profile] lists employers for a 25-year career as an electronic design engineer. There is a lot of information online from sources of varying reference quality; coverage in larger media indicate Jones involvement in a range of issues, and credibility in his field:
 * Prototype to Product: A Practical Guide for Getting to Market (O'Reilly Media) - "...great resource for 'hardcore' EE design/development information is David Jones EEVBlog..."''
 * Electronics News - Jones quoted on relocation of (his former employer) Altium to China
 * International Business Times - coverage regarding YouTube spamming of EEVBlog
 * Circuit Cellar - Jones interview; from the intro: "Dave Jones ... The Sydney, Australia-based engineer’s video blog (EEVblog) and podcast (The Amp Hour, which he co-hosts with Chris Gammell) are quickly becoming must-subscribe feeds for plugged-in inquisitive electronics enthusiasts around the world."
 * Sydney Morning Herald - controversy around Jones/EEVBlog critique of a new electronics product
 * ZDNet - EEVBlog mentioned and episode used in how-to article

Certainly, it's clear that Jones is a notable individual, and, while not in abundance, enough reliable secondary source material exists to support this. In addition, given Jones' ongoing activities, there is every reason to expect that new sources will continue to appear in future. Can't see how this could be seen as failing to meet WP:GNG. --Tsavage (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:AFD notes that !votes should "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." This guideline is not met by the vast majority of "delete" comments here. "BLP" is cited often but no cites have ever been given (not here, not on the article talk page) of contentious or even non-neutral material in the article that was not referenced to a source (before the article was stubbed, that is). Primary sources were claimed as violating BLP but not even BLP has a blanket restriction on use of primary sources, only against their misuse; nor have there been any cites of specific misuses of primary sources (only "that's primary, you can't use it"). (The prime example being when Ronz simply deleted all such points in the article, with a lone "BLP" in the edit summary.) One SPA IP mentions "the quality requirement" but does not cite any specific WP P or G that defines such. Another refers vaguely to "Wikipedia's standard". In at least one case it was claimed that sources were e.g. "found to be unsuitable" but this "finding" was simply "argument by vigorous assertion" of the delete camp on the article talk page. In sum, I suggest that the "delete" comments here are not presenting anything like a strong case per WP:AFD; most of them amount to arm-waving and rock-throwing (rocks with "BLP" painted on them). Jeh (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.