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 real agreement here, vastly differing strong opinions among the !voters Eddie891 Talk Work 19:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Smith (DJ)[edit]

Tim Smith (DJ) (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)

Although on a national station and a few local radio stations, there is nothing to suggest notability. This areticle doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria - Funky Snack (Talk) 06:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the references sufficient enough to pass GNG? They are all primary sources...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi  (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consequent to my previous close and move of this article to Draft:Tim Smith (DJ), there has been substantial discussion in deletion review and improvement to the draft; I am therefore reverting my close and relisting for further discussion, pursuant to these improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 16:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This was relisted following this deletion review discussion. ~ mazca talk 18:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be full of woolly generalities that don’t make sense. What specific facts in the article do you think are wrong or biased? FWIW I was shopping on Wednesday and heard Tim Smith on the radio going on about Groucho Marx’s birthday for some reason.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've totally lost me there I'm afraid. There are no sources to show he meets GNG...nothing woolly about that. I didn't say there was anything wrong or biased...are you sure you are replying to my !vote? Dom from Paris (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every source in the article is reliable and independent, per PainProf's remark below. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 I don't think this holds water:
Source assessment by YorkshireLad
Source assessment table: prepared by User:YorkshireLad
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/presenters/tim-smith/ No Promotional page for the show he worked on. Yes Yes No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/3yssC5F34mYrcJCmCgsDsw8/tim-smith No As above Yes Yes No
https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/radio1/england/1989-04-01 Yes Although this is a BBC website, it's showing listings from Radio Times which was by this point editorially independent. Yes No Routine rogramme listing, no detail at all No
https://radiotoday.co.uk/2016/11/steve-wright-shows-old-woman-passes-away/ Yes Yes No Passing mention No
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CgncCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Yes Yes No Just mentions his name in a diagram No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00m9d4b No Listing on BBC Radio for his programme Yes No Routine listing of programme No
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/tim-smiths-golf-talk/id435091825 No Download page for his podcast on iTunes ? Information supplied by his production team ~ Some details about him. No
http://www.premiumaudio.co.uk/podcasts/ No The company that produces his podcast ? A company writing about itself No Just a picture of Tim Smith No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bsvntx No Programme listing for a programme he was on Yes No Routine listing No
https://www.rivamedia.co.uk/tim-smith No His agency, I think No Not by Wikipedia's definition of there being editorial control, though I'm not questioning the factual accuracy Yes No
https://www.baesystems.com/en/blog/farnborough-airshow-audio-blog No About the podcast Tim Smith hosted on behalf of BAE Systems ? Not clear how much editorial oversight No Not about him, about an airshow 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)).
So I think only three sources are reliable and independent, and they're all just passing mentions. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 fix failed ping. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent analysis. I left the UK in the early 90s when Wright was still on Radio 1 so have never heard of this guy. Maybe if I'd listened to him every day I would be convinced he should be notable but I haven't so I can only go by the sources which do not support notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This only tells you one (maybe two) editor's opinions and not why a particular source is or is not unsuitable. That you only mention Radio 1 (he's been on Radio 2 mostly daily for the past 20 years, as noted and cited in the article) suggests you need to read what the sources say and not worry about rules, regulations and quantity of text. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought that when notability guidelines are not met then GNG applies and notability in an AFD has to be shown using sources and not what is written in the article. If we should be assuming notability from his career then maybe create a guideline for radio DJs. I know Wright is on radio 2 from the article but as I said I have never listened to his show so I have never heard of Tim Smith so I'm not influenced by my personal opinion and can only base my opinion on the sources as I try to do with all AFD. And BTW about half a dozen or so of my close relatives (father, mother, brother, uncle, cousins etc) work/ed in television and radio including the BBC other national radios and regional and national television and from personal experience I am not at all convinced by the argument that the different BBC sources are independent of each other. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 Meanwhile, I have listened to him on Radio 2, as it happens (I used to listen to Steve Wright in the Afternoon daily in 2014), and I did read what the sources say, which is how I did the assessment above. Obviously it's an opinion, but I don't understand how I haven't explained why I don't think the sources are suitable for establishing notability—could you explain why you think they are suitable, or how you'd justify the statement that they're independent of the subject? (I think they'd be appropriate to include in an article for referencing if the article could be shown to be notable, I should say, but that doesn't up toa WP:GNG pass.) YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEXIST is not an argument to keep in an AFD. He has been around for 30 years and is still active if the sources existed why can no one find them? The keep !voters are generally very experienced editors and they haven't been able to add find them. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"they haven't been able to add find them" - that's not true, we have, but I think both sides of the debate are exhibiting belief bias and confusing opinions with policy ("significant coverage" is a subjective term that can mean different things to different people). Therefore I don't think there's any point discussing this further and we should wait for an uninvolved admin to close this as "no consensus". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:42, 23 August 2020 (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.