Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Jones (English author)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  12:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Graham Jones (English author)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Sources do not support notability. Associate lecturer, fails WP:PROF. cagliost (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You are using the wrong information. I have updated to show I am a Senior Lecturer at one university and an associate lecturer at another. To say associate lecturer fails the WP:PROF guideline misses out the Senior Lecturer role, and misunderstands perhaps, what being an Associate Lecturer means. These are both senior academic roles which together with the authorship of multiple books and documents means that deletion for not supporting notability is mistaken. Graham Jones (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Still fails WP:PROF, also fails other criteria in WP:BIO. Lack of Significant Coverage. cagliost (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Criteria 7 of WP:PROF is clearly satisfied.
 * In WP:BIO the Creative Professionals requirement is satisfied Graham Jones (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Criterion 7 of WP:PROF not evidenced by the sources ("The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"). "Creative Professionals" in WP:BIO not evidenced by the sources. cagliost (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." Notability (academics)
 * This page had references to media coverage and interventions that could be considered for meeting Criterion 7 - at least it should be debated. JamesKH76 (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Was the issue coming from the fact those references to media appearances are not the media appearences themselves? And I thought that's why @Cagliost removed them. It seems that references to the Mirror, the BBC, and other where directly referenced in the previous version of the page. So those elements can count for criterium 7. JamesKH76 (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The state of the article just after I proposed it for deletion is here. I have since removed some sources but I will still consider them in the following analysis:
 * 1) Summary of talk given at the University of Buckingham. Primary source but could be used to argue for importance of subject.
 * 2) Mediafirst: Professional biography, commercial source from a business that employs Jones.
 * 3) Personal CV, primary source.
 * 4) University of Buckingham profile
 * 5) Society of Authors profile: commercial promotional material.
 * 6) PSA profile: commercial promotional material.
 * 7) espeakers profile: commercial promotional material.
 * 8) espeakers profile: commercial promotional material.
 * 9) Telegraph: article by Jones himself.
 * 10) Wired: article by Jones himself.
 * 11) Mirror: article by Jones himself.
 * 12) PSA president: statement of fact.
 * 13) Realbusiness: trivial mention.
 * 14) Business2Community: articles written by Jones himself.
 * 15) BBC - trivial mention.
 * 16) Mirror - brief article written by Jones himself.
 * 17) realwire - trivial mention.
 * 18) BBC - repeat of BBC source (trivial mention).
 * 19) CityAm - trivial mention.
 * 20) Wired - repeat of Wired source above
 * 21) HuffingtonPost - article by Jones himself.
 * 22) Mirror - trivial mention.
 * 23) Metro - trivial mention.
 * 24) JustStyle - paywalled, I can't read it.
 * 25) JonLloyd - review of a book by Jones.
 * 26) Link to a book by Jones.
 * 27) Link to a book by Jones.
 * 28) Link to a book by Jones.
 * 29) Amazon - list of Jones' books

I am not seeing the notability. He does not meet WP:PROF including 7 "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". No significant impact, no senior positions.

We have one book review, the presidency for 1 year of a professional association, and a bunch of brief quotes in the media.

If we ignore commercial promotional sources, we have zero sources *about* Jones, apart from statements of fact (PSA presidency and University of Buckingham profile). We have no sources analysing him, listing his accomplishments or asserting his notability. We have no facts that impart notability (e.g. senior academic positions (Senior Lecturer is not a senior position as per WP:PROF, we would need a named chair or something similar)).

I am also not seeing any of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE satisfied. cagliost (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you @Cagliost.
 * I agree that criteria for Notability (people) are not met.
 * I think op-eds on wired, the mirror, huffington post, and other, even written by Jones count as media appearances as presented in Criterium 7 Notability (academics). I guess it depends how many media appearances consist notability but there are certainly some there. Would be interested to know what other think.
 * It is right that no other notability criteria are met. JamesKH76 (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Six trivial mentions in the media do not constitute substantial impact or significant coverage. cagliost (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how this user even remotely meets the criteria of WP:AUTHOR, WP:SCHOLAR or WP:GNG (although considering he's in the conversation, I am certain I shall be shown the error of my ways before long). The PSA is not really a professional association ('public speaker' is not a profession – law is a profession, medicine is a profession, accountancy is a profession, public speaking is a thing people do), and "senior lecturers" in the UK are actually fairly junior. They certainly are not part of the professorial class and nowhere near named chairs. I do agree that when it comes to the UK, American-influenced notions of academia such as "named chairs" (which are much less frequent in the UK) do not necessarily apply without qualification, but a "senior lecturer" is far from sufficient to meet WP:SCHOLAR. In short: Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spammy apparent autobiography, does not appear to have the independent published book reviews necessary for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete See nomination. So far in this discussion, the only support appears to be from Graham Jones himself. Wikipedia doesn’t work that way, and Wikipedia doesn’t publish autobiographies. Dolphin ( t ) 22:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rightly or wrongly, the involvement of the subject in this discussion makes me lean delete, and looking at the article akes me think WP:TNT even if the subject is notable. StAnselm (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject writing articles/books is not sufficient for notability, significant independant reviews would be better for WP:NAUTHOR. There is some limited over coverage (e.g. quotes in the media), but not enough to meet WP:GNG. Don't see how would meet WP:NPROF. The obvious WP:COI issue doesn't help either. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2022 (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.