Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Nash-Jones

:{{la|Luke Nash-Jones}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luke_Nash-Jones Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Luke Nash-Jones}})

Fails general notability guidelines. The only reliable source reference in the article does not mention Mr Luke Nash-Jones at all. Everything else is social media or self-publicity. Bondegezou (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Such is totally untrue - the references feature BirkbeckTories and LondonUniBrexit websites, as well as YouTube clips of News reports from French and Swiss TV featuring Nash-Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Lists, passing references and about 20 seconds of "man on the street" appearances on TV. Nothing approaching the in-depth third party coverage required to meet WP:BIO. JohnInDC (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering that Bondegezou supports the Liberal Democrats who are opposed to Brexit, I would suggest there is clear bias in his call to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There are currently 13 references in the article. All apart from (9) and (13) appear to fail WP:RS: they are primary sources, or social media accounts (Facebook, YouTube) connected to the individual. (13) does not mention Nash-Jones at all. (9) is a students union website with unclear editorial policy; it's an article by Nash-Jones, so I don't think this can be said to meet RS either. The YouTube clips are all on a YouTube account connected to Nash-Jones; I can't verify their use by French or Swiss TV. One is under a minute long, one about a minute and the half. A brief appearance on TV does not constitute "significant coverage" about the subject under WP:GNG. I do personally support the Liberal Democrats, but would remind Jonadabsmith of WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You admit you support the LibDems who are opposed to Brexit, and thus you naturally, good faith or not, would want this page removed. Those clips did appear on French and Swiss TV, and the French TV clip is not a mere man in the street comment but an interview - the YouTube account is not held by Luke Nash-Jones and the videos are not his but clearly from media outlets. Luke Nash-Jones is not editor of the student union website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 15:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The YouTube clips are on the LondonUniBrexit YouTube account, and Nash-Jones is Vice-President of that society. I support the LibDems, but I support Wikipedia having good content about all topics of sufficient notability. Again, I suggest you peruse WP:AGF carefully. Attacks on others' motives are not appropriate. If you can supply details of the student union website's editorial approach, that would help determine if it constitutes a reliable secondary sources under WP:RS. Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see any sources that show how they have met WP:BIO. Passing mentions in the news aren't enough I'm afraid, and links to vidoes on YouTube and Facebook are not enough to meet this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I draw people's attention to the related AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Students for Britain. Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou, having admitted your political position, you are not in any neutral position to judge this article. If you want to just improve the quality of Wikipedia posts, you would co-operate with my suggestion to clean up and not delete the page. Instead you analyse Wikipedia submission guidelines to try and find an excuse to delete the page, and hence are driven by political motives. Even half what you said about it is nonsense; it has more references than you imply and than other pages you don't complain about. Rather than trying to delete pages with political ideas you disagree with, you should hit the streets and try to convince people of your ideas. Implying the Student Union is biased in favour of Brexit is ludicrous when rather it is the opposite, as are most university lecturers, of which you claim to be one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou (Dr Henry Potts), regards your reminders to all of the canvassing guidelines, the account JohnInDC which supports you appears not only to be fake but to have been deleted multiple times, calling into question the reliability of those supporting your harassment of those with other political views. It is clear that Dr Henry Potts of UCL is furious that a Brexit movement has started on his beloved left-wing campus and is trying to "no platform" it rather than support democracy and liberty that he claims are his ideals. As a lecturer, he should encourage learning and ideas, rather than silencing those he doesn't personally agree with. He should help students to express themselves, suggesting to improve articles but not seeking childishly to delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I would advise you to please do not launch into personal attacks on other editors. The account you mentioned as a "fake account" is an active account that had their user page deleted at their request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore why do you not make the same protest about Bondegezou's blatant personal attack on myself, trolling me, demanding anything I post is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - no indication that this student politician meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

29 references including newspapers and the Student Union website - what more do you want? Other pages don't have such quantity of references; your bias is shameful.

Jonadabsmith —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

:I would want to see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. My only bias is against articles that do not meet this criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

:You also need to acknowledge your conflict of interest, {{u|Jonadabsmith}}. The images used in the article make it clear that this is an autobiography. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

: Incorrect: These are photos taken at a student event; that doesn't make it an autobiography - it's rather a presumption to decide the article is about myself. I am Jonadab Smith at UCL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

::I meant the selfies. You have labelled them as being taken by Luke Nash-Jones and as your own work. See :File:Luke Nash Jones.jpg. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

:::Now see [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Luke_Nash_Jones.jpg&diff=189424080&oldid=189338543 this]. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

::::Feel free to start a bulk :commons:Commons:DR or tag individual uploads if you think there is an invalid claim of ownership or unauthorized/third-party license release. DMacks (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::I have requested an explanation at User_talk:Jonadabsmith#Conflict of interest. I'm sure {{u|Jonadabsmith}} will clear things up shortly. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete All the sources are either non-reliable or barely mention him. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Let's break this down there are 29 listed sources on the page, but one has been listed three times, so really 27.

:* 4 Facebook - Non RS.

:* 3 Youtube - In (6), Nash Jones is interviewed for 11 seconds out of the 58 second snippet, while in (7) he is interviewed for 4 seconds out of 1:34. In neither of these is he the focus of the interview and certainly none of them mention his political activities. He's interviewed as part of the wider activities of the whole Brexit movement. The third one is just a promotional video for the movement. None of these can be used as a source.

:* 6 Birkbeck students union. - non RS

:* 3 Birkbeck Tories - non RS

:* 3 LondonUniBrexit - non RS

:* 1 Allevents.in - commercial event promotion site

:* 1 Heyevents - commercial event promotion site

:* 1 Conservative way forward - non RS

:* 1 Spectator blog article - not even sure what relevance this source has to the statement it is marked against. This source is used three times

:* 1 London Union - of which Nash Jones is president. NPOV non RS

:* 1 Birkbeck informatics society - Trivial source for a trivial statement

:* 1 Membership PDF that is broken for me

:* 1 Eventbrite - commercial event promotion site

:Excluding the event promotion, YouTube and Facebook sources, all of the others are Conservative, or pro-conservative, sources which would render the article a totally NPOV mess, even if those sources could be used. Apart from all of this, none of the sources actually state what Nash Jones is notable for. There are no Google news hits and even presuming reliable sources could be found, would it be possible for that coverage to be in-depth, non trivial and not against BLP1E? Blackmane (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

:delete Per Blackmane. 15 minutes, no more. Kleuske (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• delete this is very typical WP:SOAPBOX by a conflicted creator with plain old advocacy mixed in, as well evidenced by almost all the hallmarks of WP:TENDENTIOUS. Sources are poor - passing mentions and WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.