Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Young (broadcaster)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 clear consensus has emerged despite several relists and the debate is starting to descend into personal attacks, so I think it's best to put a lid on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Young (broadcaster)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Rob Young (broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability or significant coverage in reliable sources. All provided sources are simply links to transcriptions or recordings of news shows on which the subject has been a presenter, I couldn't find any actual in-depth coverage in an internet search. Previously nominated for PROD by Reddogsix (who appears to have since retired) and dePROD by the article creator. signed, Rosguill talk 22:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar If you follow WP:ENT then point 1 Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions is met as he is a regular business reporter on radio. However there is no current guideline on journalists (WP:NOTNEWS did not achieve consensus - which the draft guidelines he would meet) as he is a news report / presenter not an entertainer. If you take WP:RPRGM then the programs he appears are notable (Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)) then taking all of these guidelines he would be a KEEP. However I think it needs instead. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is a famous broadcaster, as he has had long career in broadcasting. His article is well sourced as well as these sources here are good sources.[1][2][3] Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion on this subject, but You need to stop with these WP:ITSNOTABLE type responses. You’ve got to cite policy or allude to specific sources that prove notability through the WP:GNG. It’s not a vote - if you don’t give an actual reason, your stance is going to be ignored by the closing admin when it’s time to make a call here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, my comment above was made when the above editor made their original comment, which contained zero sources. He has since revised his comment without and indication of doing so. Upon reading his newly added sources, I’d like to point out that they appear to be by the subject, not about him, which isn’t the sort of thing that helps a subject meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
as per wp:buro they are guidelines and it is down to concensus of the editors that admits make a decision. You are not the judge jury and hangman. Precedent has been Set by pages like Charlie Stayt who is notable as being on Bbc breakfast, but whose refs are just mentions and would fail wp:gng if taken literally. As per comments before there is no wp:journey so common sense must prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:DCBF:59BE:B586:1F35 (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, you should probably read WP:NOTAVOTE - if one fails to cite any valid policy or guideline in their stance, it’ll be ignored by the closing admin. What you’re doing is nothing new - these WP:VAGUEWAVE “just google it is notable” stuff is routinely thrown out in these discussions. It’s up to you if you want to leave it at that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well if u want to quote policy how about wp:5p1 and wp:iar. Also wp:primary as BBC are a primary source but there is no interpretation just reporting fact which is backed up by wp:source point 3 - the BBC is the publisher. Also wp:blprimary comes in to this - there is no misuse. As previous comments from me and davidstewartharvey below Mickey Clark and others have no refs but have been accepted on here which means a concensus has been identified? This u have not answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:6B:DDDC:9D63:D9E6 (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC sources presented are done by him. He wa the contributor who provided the information. That doesn’t help meet the GNG. For the GNG, we need sources about him. Like if The Washington Post did an article about him and his work at BBC. As far as Mickey Clark goes, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pointing at other worse off articles isn’t a valid argument for keeping this article. I’m not familiar with Mickey, but if better sources aren’t provided, that one would probably be likely to be deleted too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And how many reporters have stories written about them? This was my point earlier. Notability cannot always be done by secondary sources in. Wp:iar! The Notability on journalists was not agreed on but actually makes sense. This guy is notable he is on a major national radio and because it doesn't have a story about him in the times he can't be here! That then fails Wp:5p1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:6B:DDDC:9D63:D9E6 (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Publications do profiles on people all the time. Feel free to keep yelling IAR, but that’s not a valid substitute for a valid argument for keeping an article, especially with a BLP, where sourcing is extra important. If all it took to keep an article was to start typing “IAR” no articles would ever getdeleted, people would just resort to that flimsy defense every single time. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I keep quoting Iar as it's a Wikipedia policy just like u keep quoting many other policies or essays and then attacking others who don't. The fundamental flaw here is Iar is there to protect the five pillars. This is not a made up character but a national radio presenter and reporter who as new evidence put on yesterday shows several writers have referenced him, and his coverage was then copied into another publication cosmopolitan when they could have chosen any business reporters story on the budget! In addition u have made assumptions that BBC profile although written in the first person is by him and has not been edited, from an organisation whose public charter is to be impartial! And as per below have accused other editors of bad references when they had not done as u said, and asking them for them to put the ref links on here which is not and policy - if amendments are made during an and please add comments to say what you have done. There is no need to duplicate links here as they are in the article just go an look I did and so do most editors and admins! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:6B:DDDC:9D63:D9E6 (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:EXIST. Sergecross73 msg me 12:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "16/02/2017, Wake Up to Money - BBC Radio 5 live". BBC. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  2. ^ "24/01/2018, Wake Up to Money - BBC Radio 5 live". BBC. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  3. ^ "News and Media appearances | SLG Economics". slgeconomics.co.uk. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  • Can you link them here for evaluation? Because your last batch of sources was not valid for proving notability. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me - I have only made one addition to the story by adding a reference from a third party source before today. The references I have added are to books where he his reports have been used as references, an Evening Standard story where his tweet has been used as part of the story, the Cosmopolitan magazine which used part of his report in their own story, Harvard University who have used his report on their own website for research as well as his interview with a trade minister of Australia which has been transcripted and added to the trade ministries official page. I believe it should be Keep as he is more notable than some other Category:British business and financial journalists who have been accepted as notable on here, but don't meet wp:gng. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please link the sources you’ve added so we can know what exactly you’re referring to. Just copy/paste the link(s) here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, since you’ve refused to do this, I’ll do one for you. These sources don’t help meet the GNG. For example, let’s look at this Cosmo source you added. It does not provide significant coverage on Rob Young. It doesn’t cover him at all. All it does is display one of his tweets. That’s not even close to the third party coverage needed to prove notability. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I’m willing to change my stance if someone can provide some valid sourcing showing the subject meets the WP:GNG, but so far, there’s nothing remotely close to that. We need third party sourcing covering the subject in significant detail. Nothing presented here or in the article does this. All that’s been presented here is sourcing written by the subject, passing mentions, vague allusions to “google it”, and suggestions to “just hang some citation needed” tags on it, none of which are valid rationales for a keep at an AFD, especially for a WP:BLP. Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just pointing out again that still, no valid policy or argument for keeping has been introduced here, nor have any valid GNG meeting sources been provided. Sources have been added to the article, but it’s been a WP:BOMBARD (or just misguided) effort. A check through of the sources will show that there are no sources providing significant coverage on the subject itself. The only reason this is even a point of debate is due to the lack of experienced editors participating. It’s not even a close call after an actual close evaluation. Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He works for the BBC and doesn't own the BBC website, unless he wrote an article, or the source is him speaking then other BBC sources are secondary sources in retrospect. He is very well known for those that follow business news and BBC threads, I see WP:GNG satisfied and then some. And why on earth are you saying BBC is not a reliable source, that what the nominators rationale is, that's wrong, it's one of the most respect news services on the planet. Govvy (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? The subject's employer is absolutely not independent of the subject. Reliability is entirely based on context–BBC may be a reliable source for news, but they aren't a reliable source on the BBC or those affiliated with it. signed, Rosguill talk 18:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree with you, I find it more reliable than anything you will tell me, thanks and good day. Govvy (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy It’s not about source reliability, it’s about the fact that he is not the subject of the sources. Being the writer/broadcaster of a source isn’t significant coverage of the subject itself. Its fundamentally and objectively not third party coverage. To satisfy the GNG, it needs to be about him, not done by him. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2d5xLXGJfGYgWDCFkbT55L4/the-world-business-report-team No Affiliated by employment. Yes No reason to suspect it’s unreliable. No Database-style LinkedIn entry, doesn’t confer notability. ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06hb0tf No Affiliated by employment. Yes No reason to suspect it’s unreliable. No About program, not him. Just a programme database entry. ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03vl4kt No Affiliated by employment. Yes No reason to suspect it’s unreliable. No About program, not him. Just a programme database entry. ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03vl4kt No Affiliated by employment. Yes No reason to suspect it’s unreliable. No About program, not him. Just a programme database entry. ✘ No
https://trademinister.gov.au/transcripts/2010/100129_bbc_young.html Yes Yes Government transcript. No He is the interviewer, not the subject of the interview. ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42512723 No Affiliated by employment. Yes No reason to suspect it’s unreliable. No Prince Harry is the subject, Young is the author. ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05s3b1r No Affiliated by employment. Yes No reason to suspect it’s unreliable. No Prince Harry is the subject. Database programme entry. ✘ No
https://www.royal.uk/prince-harry-guest-edits-bbc-radio-4s-today-programme Yes Yes Royal publication, unlikely to contain falsehoods. No Prince Harry is the subject. Young is not mentioned. ✘ No
http://slgeconomics.co.uk/news-for-slg-economics/ Yes ~ Unfamiliar with publication. No Subject is the business, Young is the interviewer. ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06gxxts No Affiliated by employment. Yes No reason to suspect unreliability. No Subject is the Musk, Young is the interviewer. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
It's clear to me that while Young's work is extensive, nobody has actually covered him or his work independently, meaning he fails WP:BASIC. Just because his employer is a big news company doesn't mean he is notable. SITH (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason there are criteria other than WP:BASIC for notability is that not all professionals who are notable "receive significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". As Davidstewartharvey notes, there are no current distinct criteria for journalists - they come under 'Creative professionals'. The most relevant criterion is 1. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Also relevant could be WP:ANYBIO: 1. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", as there are awards for journalists. The only award that I can find that the subject of this article has won is an Africa Business Reporting Award, for 'Best Radio Feature' for a program on which he was one of 12 reporters, so I would not consider that he meets that criterion. ('Rob Young' is not an easy name to search for, as there are several others with that name, so if he has won any other awards, that would be useful to know.) So, to WP:JOURNALIST - is he widely cited by peers? This article provides 7 examples where he has been cited by other media outlets (separate from the BBC), or authors of books. I can find others, including 'New LSE CEO Indicates Deal Appetite' on MarketsMedia [1] and News-watch's analysis 'THE BBC and BREXIT: Analysis of the Business News on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme' [2]. That is at least 3 separate authors and 5 separate media sources, which would surely be sufficient to meet the criterion "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers". RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these sources you’ve actually linked to are still either still tied to his employer - BBC - or are like that Cosmo source I broke down above, where it’s more or less an article transcluding a tweet he made. I don’t think “copy/pasting tweets” is what they’re shooting for with “widely cited by peers” part. It’s impossible to write an appropriate WP:BLP article around this sort of sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment your argument that the cosmo ref doesn't hold up. Cosmo could quote or copy from a whole host of financial reporters - Peston, j urquhart Stewart etc who also commented on this budget and gave similar analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.136.216 (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? I can’t tell who you’re talking to or what argument you’re trying to make. Sergecross73 msg me 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I double checked the refs and they are indeed useless to ascertain notability. Szzuk (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not know why the editor who analyzed sources chose to analyze only the first few sources. They are indeed linked to the person's employer. However, the later sources are not, eg Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Routledge and the Evening Standard. We are not judging the placement of references in the article. I do not agree that WP:JOURNALIST is not a get-out clause of WP:GNG or the WP:BASIC - profession-specific criteria are added because, as the section on Academics states, they may be "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". So to me the question is whether this person meets WP:JOURNALIST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to say although everyone has thrown guidelines here there and everywhere at this is the question of notability. WP:GNG are just that a guideline - there is plenty of pages on here where most people would question why they are here but they meet notability guidelines set out here on Wikipedia. Would most people call TV programme Love Island encyclopedic? No - its trash television but is has pages here because it has been written about in the press which therefore meet WP:GNG. There are many music bans that most of us have never heard of on Wikipedia, which would be questioned by many people if they are notable but their pages meet wp:gng because they have been written about by the music press. But journalists who have written those stories, who then are used as references on Wikipedia, and whose work is quoted here are not allowed to be on Wikipedia unless someone else has written about them? How many journalists are written about? Very few - as per RebeccaGreen commented on unless you win the Pulzer prize or are a very large character who attracts controversy. This is why she and others here have tried to put an argument to keep - ie. Academics who outside of academia would be classed as who are notable as there work has been quoted by a broad spectrum. Rules on journalists need to be clarified by putting in the village pump again to reassess. This is especially a case for people like this gentlemen who is not just a local journalist, he is a regular voice on a national radio station and as per previous comments a precedent has been set with Mickey Clarke and Charlie Stayt - in a legal case of law this would be seen as an acceptance that well known journalists are accepted as different.165.225.80.95 (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of that has any bearing on whether or not this article should be kept or deleted. You want to create a standardized set of rules for journalist notability? Great, go for it. But you need to to do that first, through creating a discussion and gaining a consensus, and then cite it at AFD. You can’t cite it already. It doesn’t exist yet. Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yet #3 and #4 cover WP:JOURNALIST rather than the first two of Creative professionals. People really need to ignore the first two rules, Other people are quoting Young's work on twitter and noting his comments in their own writing. Young has created how many podcast shows for the BBC, been on the news how many times? That's covered by #3 in a way, however Journalists do the quoting, write the stories, ask the questions report the news. These aspects need to be applied, instead of this dogmatic perception that other people will write about him. Govvy (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that’s just it: If he’s so well known and so well established for this incredible body of work of his, shouldn’t there be any third party sources attesting to this? As it is, there doesn’t seem to be anything more than editors personally attesting stuff like “Looks like he did a bunch podcasts”. Not sure that’s the type of thing JOURNALIST is trying to cover exactly... Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
again you attack anyone who has a different interpretation of the guidelines or who point out the flaws in those guidelines. Firstly rebeccagreen argued that citations of the articles work are enough - you say they are only copying a tweet across - but this is not a valid point as citing bodies of work is usually just copying vabatum from that person - also as another post pointed out any business journalists analysis could have been quoted, but they chose his. There is no rules saying the quality of work is key to citations, just that they are widely cited and as there are many business journalists at the BBC alone they could have quoted Mr. Amhed and Co who did there own analysis, but they quoted Rob Young. Secondly he has a huge body for work for the bbc as he is on nearly five days a week reporting and analyzing business news (which the BBC have made into podcasts nit Mr. Young) - that he is not written about by a third party is not unusual for journalists which is point made by many here. A good example of this is Sean O'Neill the chief reporter for the Times. He has no page here, and just a quick Google news search shows that he has only had a story written about his battle with cancer and not about his huge volume of work as a top journalist. There is enough evidence here to show Rob Young is widely cited by secondary sources, and the primary sources show he is notable for his volume of work - again different from your opinion, but again THIS will be attacked as inexperienced and don't know the rules! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:9DFA:FD51:7348:A3AE (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t take these discussions so personally. It is not “an attack” to voice ones stance that people are interpreting policies or guidelines either incorrectly or setting the standards a little too low. It’s a standard aspect of these discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rob_Young_(broadcaster)&oldid=1108124659"