Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 02:48, 12 February 2023

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 _Work 19:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Tim Smith (DJ)

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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)

• Keep- Although it doesn't have much references to it but those refs which are there in the article are Sufficient enough to pass GNG. Dtt1 07:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I've added another reference and whilst it could do with further references there's no reason to delete this article and the references are varied enough to pass GNG. Rillington (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep the page about the veteran BBC DJ Tim Smith, who has been the lucky recipient of an abundance of reliable references. Buster Reynolds (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This was relisted following this deletion review discussion. ~ mazca 18:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. The many sources suggest he is notable. Even if he is really annoying. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY - the expansion shows that we should keep this article. And as Martin has worked out, this is the guy who has read the "factoids" on the most popular British radio station for 20 years. Ritchie333 19:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect - to Steve Wright in the Afternoon. Is anyone actually looking at the sources? He works at BBC, so the BBC channel listings and page do not establish notability. I mean, nearly all of these are just channel listings and do not actually discuss Smith in depth.. the exception is his 'personal' page, but again, he's an employee - of course he's going to get a page. He gets the most passing possible mention in a radiotoday article ("other members of the posse including Tim Smith")... this does not establish notability. A listing in a chart in a book about radio (it literally lists his name on a schedule, it does not discuss him in any detail whatsoever).. then there are more listings of his podcast(s), including a listing of his podcast on Apple Podcasts. Riva Media is associated with him and the cite is promotional. The Bae Systems corporate blog post is promoting Bae systems (look, Tim Smith talked to someone at Bae). None of these are independent, in-depth sources. None of these sources establish notability. Should redirect to the show he is apparently associated with. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia 20:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep DJs are hard to classify under the various entertainment and music SNGs, but I see adequate indicia of notability based upon multiple jobs on various programs and long-term. If sporadic coverage. this guy was significant in the pre-google days, so there’s the possibility of expansion from old print archives. Montanabw 23:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Draftify per BD2412's initial close. As El Cid notes in their excellent analysis of the sources, we don't have anything to show a pass of WP:GNG here. (I did a WP:BEFORE-style search and couldn't find anything either. Quick note: the BBC isn't a homogeneous entity, so it's possible that some BBC sources—a BBC News article, say—might be sufficiently editorially independent of BBC Radio to count towards GNG. But what we've got is stuff to do with Radio 2, which clearly isn't independent.) On the other hand, by the admittedly-subjective standard of "I've heard of this guy", it seems weird that sources don't exist, and, as Montanabw notes, he has had a long and varied career that doesn't rule out sources existing somewhere, in print media, say. However, to quote BD's initial close, neither does policy permit the article to remain in mainspace with no secondary sources and no indication that such sources exist. YorkshireLad  ✿   10:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Draftify as per the initial closing or Redirect. There is no in-depth coverage in independent RS in the article whatsoever. Of the 11 sources 5 are from the BBC his employer, 2 are links to his own podcast, 1 is his profile on his agent's page, 1 is a link to BAE for a podcast he made for them. So that's 9 out of 11 that are affiliated. Of the remaining 2, one is from an unsigned 6 sentence obit' that says this about him "Joyce Frost was a regular on the Big Show for many years, appearing alongside other members of the posse including Tim Smith..." and the last is a radio studies text book dating from 2013 that lists him on a figure describing the 1st hour of the Steve Wright Show. GNG is most definitely not shown to have been met. The keep !votes seem to say "keep because I can't believe that this guy is not notable even if the sources don't point to it". I could find nothing else in a search possibly due to his very common name. If had made an impact on the profession there should be coverage of him somewhere, I can't even find anything said about him by his colleagues. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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 05:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

Every source in the article is reliable and independent, per PainProf's remark below. Ritchie333 07:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

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/ Promotional page for the show he worked on. ✘ No https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/3yssC5F34mYrcJCmCgsDsw8/tim-smith As above ✘ No https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/radio1/england/1989-04-01 Although this is a BBC website, it's showing listings from Radio Times which was by this point editorially independent. Routine rogramme listing, no detail at all ✘ No https://radiotoday.co.uk/2016/11/steve-wright-shows-old-woman-passes-away/ Passing mention ✘ No https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CgncCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Just mentions his name in a diagram ✘ No https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00m9d4b Listing on BBC Radio for his programme Routine listing of programme ✘ No https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/tim-smiths-golf-talk/id435091825 Download page for his podcast on iTunes Information supplied by his production team ~ Some details about him. ✘ No http://www.premiumaudio.co.uk/podcasts/ The company that produces his podcast A company writing about itself Just a picture of Tim Smith ✘ No https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bsvntx Programme listing for a programme he was on Routine listing ✘ No https://www.rivamedia.co.uk/tim-smith His agency, I think Not by Misplaced Pages's definition of there being editorial control, though I'm not questioning the factual accuracy ✘ No https://www.baesystems.com/en/blog/farnborough-airshow-audio-blog About the podcast Tim Smith hosted on behalf of BAE Systems Not clear how much editorial oversight 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  ✿   09:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333 fix failed ping. YorkshireLad  ✿   09:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

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 10:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

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  ✿   12:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• keep it's very challenging to provide reliable sources given the name is very common. When I searched my university database I get several hundred entries for the Guardian's radio pages. Some of which from abstract are more in depth but online copies weren't available so I can't verify that. Probably a non insignificant number of people know who this is to the extent a who is this article is fine. The BBC is reliable enough for this bio detail. Without a doubt more un-indexed sources exist. PainProf (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

"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 10:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Wow! I wish I'd never put this up as an AfD if I knew it would have caused so much upset. Let me explain my reasoning as to why I nominated this page for deletion. Although Tim is on the radio, this doesn't automatically mean he warrants an article. Even a Redirect to Steve Wright In The Afternoon would suffice. As far as I'm concerned (along with other editors) the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. As I've said before, someone just because someone is on a national radio station, doesn't make them notable. My nomination still stands. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Per Ritchie 333, the subject meets our guidelines and the article has improved and expanded Wm335td (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2020 (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.