Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Jolly (academic)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Jolly (academic)

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

The article is a WP:BLP. I attempted first to salvage this by removing some of the worst WP:PUFFERY, but quickly realized that if I were to do so and remove all unreferenced claims, there would be practically nothing left in the article. The only references appear to be press releases/staff pages from institutions he has been at (so not independent from him) with a single exception in terms of an article published by "NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence" which I can't figure out the reliability and independence of. The only "news article" I can find about the person is this The Guardian blog post (see italics below first image stating "this blog"). This is far from "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". I do acknowledge that my attempts to find further articles from Google News etc. were frustrated by the seemingly more prominent politician of the same name, so it's not impossible I might have missed something. While Jolly appears to have held several academic positions, I don't think any of these are enough to fulfill WP:ACADEMIC. Ljleppan (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

* Delete: I also tried a number of searches (including the Rainbow in the Dark doctrine) to see if there was a possibility of satisfying WP:ACADEMIC but couldn't find anything of substance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * this source has sigcov of Jolly (and states that his work is important/influential) but I'm not sure it's independent. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really trust the tone of that source in general, but even that source talks almost as much about his non-academic work. And this one cited on his page by his own college at Cambridge, which would have every reason to talk up his academic achievements, talks mostly about what he's done in a non-academic capacity: | https://www.clarealumni.com/file/ClareNews_Edition31.pdf (pg. 8). He certainly doesn't pass WP:Academic. -- asilvering (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete not convinced meets WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, or even WP:GNG. Happy to be proved wrong though, if someone can find some independant reviews of his works or similar. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment looking at contributions to this page and related ones by Special:Contributions/Manorial, it looks there might have been a bit of puffery going on. I excised a whole section of speculation (with some questionable sourcing) from the MI7 article relating to Jolly. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article rang my alarm bells because of the quantity of embedded external links, which would need to be cleaned out if it were kept. The sources are dreadful, the text gave the impression of someone important enough to have good sources, but when I Googled and struggled to find anything independent. I didn't think he passed NPROF as, although he's held a lot of academic positions, none leapt out as super-senior. He's clearly a solid committee-member, and been on loads of think-tanks, but I can't assess the notability of think-tanks, and I'm no judge of military matters, so I didn't feel confident to bring the article here myself. The article also suffers from SPA-editing. But I agree with ; by the time we've cleaned the article of what shouldn't be in it, there's not going to be anything left. At the moment, I can't see any alternative to delete. But if anyone can find some sourcing, I'd be happy to change my mind. Elemimele (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2021 (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.