Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Jonze (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   no consensus. No agreement on whether the coverage is significant or not. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Tim Jonze
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested speedy A7, does appear to have media hits, but most are articles by subject of article. Tawker (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable journalist, music writer. He has reviewed many albums and songs. Even in wikipedia, he has been referred. 30,000+ results in Google, 200+ in google books, etc  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 17:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Added more references about the subject, by different sources.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 17:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, wrtes a lot but is not written about enough to make him notable.TheLongTone (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not getting you, subject passes WP:NOTABILITY.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 09:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Not only is there a significant amount of sources to support his notability, but he is also only 34; potentially has a longer writing career ahead of him, which means there could be more to add to the article. Adamh4 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks coverage about Jonze instead of by Jonze. Notability is not inherited from those he has reviewed or interviewed. Sourcing does not support his notability, just that he's doing his job. His possible future career does not make him notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You require 1-2 reliable sources for proving notability. You've no idea what is 'notability'. There are at least 6 sources about Jonze from others, you lack the capability of judging sources.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the sources not labelled as being by Jonze. At time of writing
 * 1 Best of a bad bunch but lacks any depth of coverage about Jonze. Just another story about someone else.
 * 2 Not a reliable source, just Jonze talking about himself.
 * 3 An advert by his employer. Not independent coverage.
 * 4 Not a reliable source, just a listing.
 * 6 A bunch of Wikipedia article clumsily bundled into book form. Extremely obvious that it's not a reliable source. Placed in the article by someone who lacks the capability of judging sources.
 * 10 Just a quote from his work, no depth of coverage.
 * 11 Op Ed piece telling an anecdote about Morrissey and Jonze.
 * 12 Interview by Jonze, not about him
 * 13 About Kaiser Chiefs, Jonze was just the reporter
 * There is not multiple independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage about Jonze. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Anything that has been published by publishers like Hachette UK, John Blake Publishing, Voices.yahoo, etc, it cannot be devalued. It is funny that you haven't mentioned any of them in details. journalism-now.co.uk is also a reliable source, and it is written by Joe Rutterford, not Jonze, it is an interview. So once again, his notability has been proven. Just check how many results he has on net, and even inside wikipedia. For about last 7 days, I haven't looked him up, but you may want to read, and it was added to La Roux, before I would create this page.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 06:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Publication by a reputable publisher does not turn a trivial mention into in depth coverage. Yahoo Voices is not a reliable source. Quote from their disclaimer "Yahoo Inc. ("Yahoo") does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any articles, videos or other posted information on the Yahoo Contributor Network ("YCN") (collectively, "YCN Content"). All YCN Content is provided by YCN Contributors in the YCN community, like you. None of the YCN content is written, or edited by Yahoo employees." Journalism Now may have the byline of Joe Rutterford (who?) but its still just rote questions answered without any analysis. Question. Unquestioned answer. Journalism Now is also not a reliable source. Who are the editors? Who are the publishers? Who has oversight? Where is any evidence of their reputation for fact checking? And that La Roux piece you link is about La Roux not about Jonze. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Last link, was meant to clear that Jonze has been highlighted by multiple sources for his reviews. Although its a joke that voices.yahoo is not a reliable source. Everyone has their guidelines, no one claims to be best really. But whatever they print is, it is not based on rumors, but something that happened. Although, Jonze is also mentioned by Daily Mail, Nytimes, etc.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 04:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete . I don't think the Guardian talking about their own journalist makes him notable. The rest is either trivial or unreliable.  Spinning Spark  15:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Other than Guardian itself, there are hundreds of WP:RS, talking about him. Even if we take his current position, he seems to have mentioned by many reliable sources, including nytimes, dailymail. You just have to look around, before making your opinion.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 04:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The question is: Is this guy notable? From a he's-the-music-editor-at-The-Guardian standpoint, yes. From a Wikipedia standpoint, which demands reliable sources to supplement the claim (which OccultZone has yet to provide), I lean towards Delete although my gut says this guy is worth it. Or could there be a redirect to The Guardian page of some sort? I notice on the Guardian article that the opinion editor is listed, but no other editors. GRUcrule (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , all you have to do is search "Tim Jonze". Recently, multiple news sites mentioned him,, why would they, if he's not notable? So deletion is probably no solution here, only editing is.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 04:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I did Google him, and no, reliable sources did NOT appear. The sources you continue to provide don't qualify because they don't cover Jonze. That's the issue - the sources need to be about the subject of the article. Having one line mention somebody does not qualify, as most of the sources you've provided do (or are by the subject of the article himself). I'd encourage you to dive in deep at WP:NOTRS. Furthermore, your claim the subject passes WP:NOTABILITY above has no basis at this point because you haven't extrapolated on it - please explain in detail why you believe he passes that test. GRUcrule (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't said that they specifically covered him, infact some do, but for his journalism. But that is same with just every other notable editor or journalist. And he's just 34 yet, like other editor mentioned. I am not getting how subject is not passing WP:Notability. Can you redirect me to the correct sentence? And he passes notability guideline, because he has been mentioned by a number of known media.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 13:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mentions are not sufficient to establish notability. Take a look at what WP:GNG has to say.  The coverage must be "significant", sources must "address the topic" (ie Tim Jonze) "directly and in detail", not just "a passing mention".   Spinning  Spark  14:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , you are right about WP:GNG, but it is quite similar with many other journalist pages, for example Tim Dowling, Urmee Khan, etc. You can see that almost whole content comes from themselves. Nothing like anyone else has specifically covered them, in detail. GRUcrule had a made a good point, that article can be merged. I think there is potential to create a List of Guardian journalists, we even got List of ABC Evening News anchors. Not only this article, but many others will need to be merged. It will take some time, and discussion, but it will be a better alternative.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 14:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are millions of articles on Wikipedia, they are extremely variable in quality, and they are only reviewed on an ad hoc basis by volunteer editors. For that reason we do not usually accept comparisons with other articles as valid arguments (on either side) in a deletion debate.  See WP:OTHERSTUFF.  Your idea of a list article sounds good to me, but as it does not yet exist I am still in favour of delete.  What you can do if the decision is to delete is to request that the closing admin userfies the article for you.  You can then convert it to a list in your own time and move it back into mainspace when you are ready.  Spinning  Spark  15:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Spinningspark, that's a great idea. OccultZone, since you clearly have an interest in this article, I think you'd be perfect to get that endeavor started in your sandbox if the closing admin agrees to userfy the Jonze article. As for the merge, what I suggested was that the infobox on The Guardian page has one editor listed, not all of them. Jonze can be listed there, and if you wanted to expand that article a bit, I'm sure reaching out to other editors on the page and discussing how to bring in a bit of content on some of the editors could be done. GRUcrule (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Journalists of The Guardian is the new page. Tim Jonze now redirects to a subsection of this page. Thanks Spinningspark and GRUcrule for your ideas, insights, and thoughtfulness.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 06:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You should really have waited for the debate to be closed before redirecting, you are assuming what the decision is going to be, but I am happy with that, thus changing to redirect.  Spinning Spark  07:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Changing to redirect as it currently is. GRUcrule (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose including Jonze in that list. Such lists should be made up of notable members, not everyone who has ever worked there. Wikipedia is not a staff directory. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Spinningspark, I had reverted previous version for now.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 08:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: There is significant widespread media coverage over the controversy about the subject's interview with Morrissey, both initially after publication (I added a couple to the article: Independent, Scotsman) and at the point when legal action ended in 2012. That plus the subject's ongoing career may be enough for meet biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More minor mentions around a minor event. Nothing in depth about Jonze. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is more than enough media coverage of this person with various sources. Meets notability requirements. Article could be improved though. LordFixit (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is the media coverage about Jonze that you speak of? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2014 (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.