Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jolyon Jenkins

Jolyon Jenkins

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

Jolyon Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents me from returning this to draft unilaterally. I am unsure that would be my preferred action now it is in mainspace. Jenkins is presented as a good but WP:ROTM journalist doing his job. Many, most, of the references are his work, but they are not reviews of him nor his work, thus they provide no verification of any putative notability. WP:V is a key tenet of Wikipedia and is not satisfied. As presented and referenced I cannot see a pass of WP:BIO. A WP:HEY outcome would be acceptable. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has been substantially rewritten to clearly demonstrate the subject's notability through multiple independent sources. It now includes national press reviews from The Guardian, The Sunday Times, The Independent, and Radio Times, industry-recognized awards such as the One World Broadcast Trust Award and the Sony Radio Award, and evidence of significant contributions to public debate, including testimony before the House of Lords Select Committee on data protection. Given these factors, the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for journalists and media figures Frobisher2021 (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see this as an opinion that this be kept, and not draftified.
I am slightly saddened about this. Of the references that I can access, two only point to an award, which might confer notability. The others are simple evidence of Jenkins doing his job, which cannot verify notability. One is a programme listing, which shows that he has a programme, and another does not mention him. I have not changed my view, nor my willingness to accept a request to return this to draft as an outcome of this discussion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some citations are intended to verify that Jenkins produced or presented the programmes mentioned. In such cases, a programme listing is a valid source, as it confirms authorship and broadcast history. If there is a specific citation where Jenkins is not mentioned, I would appreciate clarification so it can be corrected.
Regarding notability, multiple citations go beyond listings and are national press reviews from The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, and Radio Times. The consistent critical acclaim over decades from respected critics (e.g., Gillian Reynolds provides strong evidence of notability, as it is not just passing praise, but exemplary recognition, going beyond “run of the mill”. If more evidence of this is required, it can be provided.
Additionally, Jenkins was Deputy Editor of the New Statesman, a major political magazine. His work has been frequently cited in peer-reviewed academic research and journalism studies, including publications like the British Journalism Review, Index on Censorship, and the scholarly book Investigating Corporate Corruption (Taylor & Francis). These citations further demonstrate his impact on journalism and public discourse. A section on this could be added.
Regarding awards, while only two currently have citations, further research is likely to provide more. The fact that industry-recognized awards cannot so far be backed up by citation in itself is not a reason for deletion, especially given the additional press and academic recognition.
Finally, if the objection is based on access to citations, Wikipedia's verifiability policy explicitly allows print sources, even if they are not personally accessible to all editors. Many of these sources are accessible through newspaper archives (e.g., Newspapers.com, The British Library), and all are fully formatted with author, title, and date, allowing verification through standard research methods. Frobisher2021 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I left this for this long in case the creator would agree to draftify, but that is not going to happen. In fact there is little point draftifying what is currently, and likely to remain, a non notable journalist. The problem with the sourcing has been explained by the nom., but to be clear: sources must not just be from reliable sources, they must have significant subject of the page subject (such that the page can be written) and, importantly, they must be independent. Interviews are not independent. Their own work and listsings of their work are not independent. There needs to be independent sources that speak about this journalist, demonstrating notability. We don't have that. So sourcing is lacking. We also have no indication of notability from any of the WP:NJOURNALIST criteria. The discussion of awards would be a criterion under WP:ANYBIO which states, under criterion 1, likely notability if The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. "Well-known" and "significant" are where this falls down, and that is even supposing those awards are for the journalist (some are) and not for the programme team (as, for instance, here [1] ). So there is no pass of ANYBIO on criterion 1. Even if there were, ANYBIO is only a refutable indication of notability, and the lack of sources that talk about Jenkins is the real reason that we should not be covering this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I would agree to draftify but I don't know how. Please take this as my assent. I am puzzled by your comments, which is not to say that I disagree with them but I simply do not understand.
    I don't think any of the sources are interviews, so I don't see how that objection applies.
    When you say "their own work or listings of their work are not independent" - but surely a listing of a work on a BBC website is sufficient to demonstrate that the work exists and that the subject was producer and/or presenter of it? (Because the listings say so and the BBC is authoritative on this point)
    When you say that "There needs to be independent sources that speak about this journalist, demonstrating notability" surely multiple reviews from independent reviewers in the national press, which refer to Jenkins by name, in terms that make it clear that they consider his work to be notable, demonstrate exactly that? Again I am trying to understand, not argue.
    On the awards, there are citations for all but two. The Radio Academy (Sony) awards are as significant as they come, and the others are (or were) major industry awards. It is true that broadcast journalism awards are given to programmes and not individuals, but in the case of the one you link to, Jenkins is both presenter and producer, i.e. the entire team. This is true of many of the other ones too. In the case of File on 4, each episode had two journalists (producer and reporter) as the BBC listings show. So the credit would be equally shared. Frobisher2021 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of Why This Article Meets Wikipedia’s Notability Criteria

Although I would accept draftify as a compromise, I believe that the article does in fact meet the notability criteria

  • Press Coverage: Multiple reviews in The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, Daily Telegraph Radio Times over decades.
  • Major Industry Award: One programme awarded Sony Radio Academy Award—described as “the Oscars of British radio”; two others nominated.
  • Parliamentary Impact: His work was cited in a House of Lords Select Committee report.
  • Academic Recognition: Cited in Investigating Corporate Corruption (Taylor & Francis) and British Journalism Review and many other academic papers.
  • Senior Editorial Role: Former Deputy Editor of the New Statesman, a leading UK political magazine.

Specialist Awards: Recognized in One World Media Awards, * British Environment & Media Awards, Medical Journalism of the Year awards (twice) which have honoured major BBC and other journalists and which are widely recognised as prestigious. Frobisher2021 (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The two Medical Journalist of the Year awards, the Sony, the praise cited from reviews of his work ("The Glasgow Herald described him as 'the go-to guy for quirky subjects which require intelligence and chutzpah in equal measure', while the Radio Times has noted that 'Jenkins makes some of the most original documentaries on Radio 4' and in the same publication, David Gillard noted 'Whatever subject Jolyon Jenkins is dealing with I will listen ... I regard him one of our finest broadcasters'"), and "The Liquidators. This documentary is extensively discussed, including Jenkins's role, in the book Investigative Journalism" clearly indicate notability; as does the subject's role presenting programmes on a national radio station. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Delete Here are the problems that I see: 1) we have no sources ABOUT him other than to name him in some brief reviews in newspapers, which are not enough for GNG 2) most of the facts here are not from independent sources - his name on a BBC show listing isn't an independent source, and is very thin for sourcing 3) I have no idea if the Medical Journalist Awards are important enough to reach GNG, but that is all we have to go on. To Frobisher2021 I would recommend a review of the WP:Reliable_sources and WP:Notability since these seem to not met in the article. I removed some WP:PROMO and exaggerations in the language; I also removed the Google Doc spreadsheet citations (not a reliable source), and other non-reliable sources (linking to a Swedish TV listing of a documentary was particularly odd). My recommendation is draftify and for the editor to take this through WP:AFC where they might be given help with the problems. Lamona (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your input. The mentions from the reviews are indeed brief, but the reviews themselves are not. For example, if you follow the to the Guardian review for the "Brixmis Story", which was shortlisted for a Sony award, you will find that the reviewer goes on to say " It's an amazing story, for the full substance of which I really urge you, listen again, listen again". This is not untypical, but to quote the reviews in full would turn the article into a hagiography, which is not my intention - they are included only to demonstrate notability. The Medical Journalist of the Year awards are definitely prestigious - other winners include Michael Mosley and Marjorie Wallace. I am uncertain how to demonstrate authorship of particular programmes other than through BBC online listings. I imagine print listings in national newspapers would qualify, but would the Radio Times? Frobisher2021 (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked up the Guardian article and although there is the praise you quote, there is only a scant paragraph, and that is not what we call "substantial." You need to source as much as possible to articles ABOUT the person, and I mean ARTICLES - longish pieces (pages, not sentences) about the person. If various programs are notable (as WP defines WP:NOTABILITY) you need third-party, independent sources for the programs - more than a quick review in a piece that is essentially: this is what was on this week. Mere listings, whether on BBC or in a newspaper, are not sufficient to establish notability and are not independent. As for the awards, who has won them is not what makes them prestigious - again, we need sources that are independent that explain the importance of the awards. I looked for those and didn't find any. If you have some you should add them to the article. Lamona (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Frobisher2021, I'm glad you've dropped the AI - as you've perhaps noticed, ChatGPT (or whatever LLM you're using) is really quite terrible at understanding Wikipedia. I strongly suggest avoiding it for both writing articles and conversing with other editors. -- asilvering (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: plenty of sourced evidence of awards and recognition for his work. Yes minimal biographic info, but that is not uncommon among people who are known for their work and not for their private life. From this I could have added that his mother was a teacher for 45 years and (I think we can logically infer without OR) that he studied journalism at City University, but he appears to have chosen not to share his life on LinkedIn etc, and is no less notable for that. PamD 23:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you saw what you consider "plenty of sourced evidence" for the awards? I looked at all of the "awards" and other than the medical journalism award (which I'm still trying to find information about, beyond its own web page) I can't access the Ariel sources, and the book that is cited has only a mention of Jenkins, nothing that supports the award. Note, also, that the Sony awards for both years are nominations, not wins, and the number of nominees is quite large. Lamona (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To me this looks like a "no consensus" at this time: opinions are reasonably divided on borderline sources and other evidence. Relisting in the hope of more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

I would like to address some of the points that have been made, and separate out the two issues - sources and notabiity. Sorry this is a bit long. Re sources. Many of the sources are BBC programme listings. These are primary sources but WP:PRIMARY allows such sources “to support straighforward descriptive claims”, and WP:V clarifies: “If a reliable source states that a person authored a programme, that is sufficient.” So these sources are not thin for the purpose they serve. Re the fact that some sources are not easy to verify: This is true, because they are print listings. However WP:V says “Editors may use materials that have been published in reliable sources, even if they are not easily accessible”. The print sources I have used can all be verified using standard research methods such as newpapers.com or other newspaper databases and the British Library.

Notability: “There is very little about Jenkins” - possibly not, but Jenkins’s notability is in the body of his work rather than him as a person, and that is what the sources demonstrate. I think that the subject would be notable even without the awards, and could point to many other BBC journalists with pages who have few if any awards and little if any recognition in national newspapers. The fact of being a regular presenter and producer on national radio is (in their case) enough, and Jenkins has been a regular presence on BBC national radio for three decades.. However, turning to the questions about the awards:

  • Are the awards significant? If significance is not to be found in a list of previous winners (which I’d dispute) how about the body that awards them? In the case of Medical Journalist of the Year, this is awarded by the Medical Journalists Association, and newspapers whose journalists receive them always describe them as prestigious. The same goes for the British Environment and Media Awards, which are awarded by the WWF. Indeed the Independent saw fit to celebrate the fact that its distinguished environment correspondent Geoffrey Lean was simply a runner up.
  • Is being runner up twice in the Sony’s significant? (In addition to the bronze). Each category has five nominees, of which three get gold/silver/bronze. Yes in total there are many nominations, but almost all are for categories such as news, breakfast shows, drivetime shows etc. Documentaries are barely in there, so to be nominated twice from the hundreds made each year is, I would say, a notable achievement
  • If a programme (rather than a named journalist) wins an award, does this confer notability on the journalist? Radio documentaries are essentially one-person endeavours - producer, and sometimes reporter/presenter. In many cases, Jenkins both produced and presented, so the credit must go to him alone.
  • The mentions in the reviews are “brief”. This is because the reviews are of the programme not the person, and so Jenkins is mentioned to establish authorship and then the reviews - at a standard length - go on to talk about the programme. Even so, the mentions, particularly by GIllian Reynolds in the Telegraph, single out Jenkins for his exceptional qualities, often referring to his body of work in general as well as the programme under review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobisher2021 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if this has been noted, but you, User:Frobisher2021, are the original creator of this article. You obviously are a legitimate participant in this discussion but your two "walls of text" are to some extent explained by the effort you have put into this article. As I said above, I think you would benefit by taking this article through wp:AFC where you can get advice about sourcing without the immediate threat of deletion. Lamona (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jolyon_Jenkins