Talk:Stephen Jolly

AFC comment

• Comment: Given AfC reviewers are not sure what to do here and the creator is sure this is a notable topic, the creator can just move it themselves. Not a page I'm willing to approve but not one I would seek deletion on either. Good luck. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Mick Armstrong, William Barak, Julian Burnside, Helen Caldicott, Albert Langer, Stephen Mayne, Tom O'Lincoln, Van Thanh Rudd, B. A. Santamaria, Joseph Toscano and Les Twentyman are all activists from Melbourne and are the subjects of Wikipedia articles. There are more I've not listed than those I have, from Melbourne alone. This article is already sourced pretty well, and can only improve when more editors notice it and contribute. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: As I've noted, I don't think the sourcing is quite there to be WP:BOLD, to be honest. There aren't any SNGs for being a prominent local activist. SportingFlyer talk 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: @SportingFlyer and Vincent60030: the subject of this draft should be judged as one of the most prominent activists in Melbourne, and not only as a councillor, party leader and perennial candidate, of which many currently have Wikipedia articles. I'm willing to WP:BOLD establish this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a difficult one. Per WP:THREE, which are the best sources currently in the article? [1] covers him as an unelected candidate, same with this [2]. [3] is focused on him, this [4] is from an interview in electrical trade union news, and [5] is routine. I'm not sure I'd vote to keep this at AfD, probably would vote to merge what is relevant into the Vic Socialists article. SportingFlyer talk 06:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I honestly can't make a decision right now considering the comments about notability concerns. Could someone take over? VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 11:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm unsure where that detail came from, I personally did not add that. I have removed that section and will try to look into sources regarding his earlier life, thanks for pointing it out. Catiline52 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: He moved to Ireland to be active in the British Labour Party? This doesn't add up. I also argue that a six-time state election candidate combined with four-times councillor and micro-party leader is more than enough for notability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I've expanded on the sourcing with regards to the state campaigns significantly since the last submission. If there are any problems, I'd be happy to implement any critiques. Catiline52 (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Following up on the WP:NPOL issue I note this draft has thusfar focused on his history of electoral politics, however a large part of the merit for publication I am able to find doing background research is his history as an author in Australia, including his book on the 1993 Richmond Secondary College protests, as well as for publishing what appears to be one of very few first-hand western accounts of the Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989; having remained there for the full extent after most journalists vacated the square. The latter in particular, combined with his involvement as the National Secretary of several parties over the years prior to this recent project seems to cumulatively meet the notability requirement as opposed to a diversion (see WP:1E) if the authors flesh out those aspects of the article in more depth. In my view once it does that it will meet the criteria for publication. Comradeblinky (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Australia's a dodgier place than most other countries when it comes to the notability of local politicians -- the major Australian cities actually don't have citywide councils at all, but instead the local government areas (what people in North America or the UK would understand as boroughs of the city) are the only level of local government there actually is. So the only viable case for inclusion of an Australian city councillor is that they have a strong and highly sourceable claim to being a special case of greater notability than most of their colleagues -- even in Sydney and Melbourne, there's just nobody who would get the automatic "instant notability because global city" pass.
  So yes, I agree that any basis for notability here would have to come from his leading of a political party, but I also agree with Legacypac that the sourcing here isn't strong enough to get him there yet -- the sourcing that is shown here in the state-level context is too strongly dependent on primary sourcing, like raw tables of election results, as things stand right now. He's not a completely hopeless topic, though -- there is a path to notability here if his sourcing in the context of leading a political party improves in the future, he just hasn't reached the destination yet as of today. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks Legacypac! Bkissin (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Local council election is not notable. The party he leads is very new, just months old, and remains very minor. Leading it is not notable yet in my opinion. Since it looks like he is the first leader, You might consider adding a little info to the party article on his leadership. As this page s now I doubt it would survive a deletion discussion. Legacypac (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking at this article from a WP:NPOL perspective, I don't know if city Councillor for Yarra is notable enough as a municipal politician. Bearcat, unless we are considering Yarra part of the larger Melbourne area, I don't see this city council as having worldwide reach.
  Do you think he would be notable as a minor party leader? Bkissin (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

New section

Given that no one can decide what to do with this page at AfC I suggest the creator just move it to mainspace themselves and see how it goes. AfC is an optional process after all. Legacypac (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Do not move the page, but instead create a disambiguation page. Catiline52 (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Stephen Jolly (politician) → Stephen Jolly – With double the views of Stephen Jolly (academic), this really shouldn't be any trouble at all. However it does require a consensus on this talk page. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Ending 9 February 2019 08:26 (UTC)

• But you just boldly moved Stephen Jolly to Stephen Jolly (academic). As it stands, there is no need for the hatnote at the academic, for example. Considering that it links to both the politician (piped) and Stephen Jolley, I can see a case for making Stephen Jolly into a disambiguation page, per WP:TWODABS. The politician article was only created in the middle of last year, and its page views seem to be on the decline, so I don't think that's a convincing argument for primacy. Long-term significance is relevant (and all the other usual considerations). 94.21.238.64 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This Stephen Jolly is long term relevant, and clearly more notable than the academic Stephen Jolly, where people searching Stephen Jolly or incorrectly linked to it have increased the page views for the academic when they meant to see the politician/activist. The only reason the academic Stephen Jolly was at Stephen Jolly was because that article was created first. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You say the politician is "clearly" more notable without providing any evidence. I still think it's premature that you moved the academic from the existing title an hour before this request. 94.21.238.64 (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I intended to do this boldly myself, so I started with moving that article to its current place, as the summary for the move shows. I was then unable to move this article into the non-disambiguation title, but was unable to do so. Then I requested a technical move.

This shows the page views for the politician Stephen Jolly as 409 views for the last 30 days, while Stephen Jolly the academic has 222 shown here. Stephen Jolley averages less than one view per day, probably directed from the notes on the Stephen Jolly articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt your good faith, but you'll never be able to complete a move of that kind boldly, because the redirect left behind by the move has history. You can request it at WP:RM/TR, though it might well be contested 94.21.238.64 (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I did request it there immediately after I was unable to move it myself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see it was "not done, disambiguation needed". 94.21.238.64 (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Note: I have moved the "academic" page back to where it was (96719698) - per requested at requested moves/technical requests. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Create a disambiguation page, per WP:TWODABS. I don't see how a city councillor is more significant than a Cambridge Fellow, honorary Freeman of the City of London, etc. 94.21.238.64 (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I just showed you how, double the views, even with the disadvantage of the other article being without disambiguation. WP:TWODABS only applies when neither are primary topic. His main notability isn't being a councillor though, it's about being a well known Melbourne activist and perennial candidate. Many people are City of London freemen and fellows of Cambridge and other societies and they don't even have a Wikipedia article. The political Stephen Jolly doesn't live in London anymore, so that's an unfair comparison. Again this was just an oversight created by the fact that the more notable Stephen Jolly article was created later than the less notable one. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

As I said, page views are not the only consideration. Having the Freedom of the City of London does not require one to live in London (or even be British), I was merely pointing out he is an academic and civil servant of high standing. Most of the world has probably heard of neither. 94.21.238.64 (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I second the creation of a disambiguation page. If Jolly was a state or federal politician they might be seen as significantly more notable (As it is a major consideration in WP:POLITICIAN). However, at the current moment, I do not see why one would be preferenced over the other. A difference of 6 views (extra 200 views month / 30 days) a day isn't that significant. Catiline52 (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There's only two people with the name Stephen Jolly, not enough for an automatic disambiguation page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There's also Stephen Jolley, who has a very similar name. Catiline52 (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

That's just saying that one of the two is the primary topic. Otherwise, WP:TWODABS applies. 94.21.238.64 (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly primary topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, WP:RECENTISM per page views. Institution of a disambiguation page at the plain title would be fine. Dekimasuよ! 17:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The local politician is certainly no more notable than the "academic". Note that the latter also served as Director of Defence Communications, a civil servant with the equivalent military rank of major-general. He's not really an academic at all. Against that we have an activist and councillor in a city of 86,000 people! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I gather that most of these oppose !votes are from outside Melbourne and outside Australia, which is fine but the context for Jolly's notability seems to be misconstrued. Jolly is a political activist in a city of about five million people, while he is also a local councillor of one of Melbourne's city councils. Civil servants aren't typically more notable than politicians and activists, since they aren't making themselves known to the public in the way that politicians and activists would. Per Dekimasu's comment, even when this article was a draft it was getting as many page views as the civil servant Stephen Jolly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That may be, but is he really notable and well-known enough to be primary topic? I think not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying he is. I don't see how an argument can be made that he's not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Relisting note: consensus appears to be leaning to no primary topic and instituting a dab at the base page. SITH (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

President?

Can we just sort this out once and for all with a reliable source? He's certainly the returning officer as confirmed by the VEC, but he might also be the president of Victorian Socialists. We can't just rely on editors assuring that they've contacted party officials. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Jolly is the "registered officer" of the party according to the VEC and the president of the transitional executive. [external link redacted] LeoC12 (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That source doesn't say anywhere that Stephen Jolly is the party's president. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Richwales: What was the point of redacting that link? It's something that the political party has published to be read. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The document in question contained a name and apparent telephone number of a third party, which should not be referred to on Wikipedia per the "Biographies of Living Persons" policy (WP:BLP). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)