Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Roush

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 delete. The arguments of the delete voters are much stronger.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Roush

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient citations to establish notability. Given sources are minor. Film/video credits are very small time; for example, the Greenday video "intro" is actually credited as the "title sequence" in the reference. PROD removed, moving to AfD. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets wikipedia's notability guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Establishment5 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment5, we usually give a reason for the article meeting notability... can you provide one?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has received more than simply trivial mention in the media that is linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Establishment5 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Vote - I was approached by Josh Roush through Fiverr and asked if I could use my Wikipedia experience to help show then notability of this article. I have gone through and pulled out information that was in the sources but not necessarily in the article yet to help demonstrate notability by showing being featured in an A.V. Club article, on Yahoo!, the accolades his most recent film has garnered in just under a month etc. If you have any questions on my edits or issues with it please let me know, it is my hope that I helped bring this article to a stated where it does demonstrate notability. MPJ-DK 00:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI have checked the page and did not find anything inappropriate, the language used is encyclopedia and has no peacock words used. I find that it does not have infobox, so I added it. In my opinion the page should be kept but improvements may be required.Kkc knight (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see lots of new, days-old accounts (Kkc knight and Establishment5) chiming in here! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note form Josh Roush (presumably) on my talk page: "I paid two people on fiverr to help me through editing the code in order to comply with wikipedias standards."HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of which is me, clearly, That is why I was not voting, I just helped bring out a few things in the soutces. MPJ-DK 03:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MPJ, I know-- you are straight up honest! It's the other editor that is causing a question here. This is a paid editing job with at least one undisclosed editor, which means it might have to be deleted deleted on that basis. There's also a lot of IP/new account activity trying to get the article kept.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-User Joshroush contacted me also on Fiverr for assistance. I acted as a consult to his Wiki and sent him better sources. I offered consultation to assist, did not make any actual changes to the page. I am the second he mentioned, he sent me a message on Fiverr asking me to clarify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.56.16.174 (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not A Vote I was also paid to help save this article by Roush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Establishment5 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This advertorial masquerading as an encyclopedia article fails the general inclusion criteria for Any biography and the General notability guideline and even more so the alternative criteria for Creative professionals. The "sources" are name checks and credits for several very minor films/podcasts or local mentions. This is simply a padded CV. There is zero biographical information about person because there is zero coverage of him. Even the date and place of birth are not verified by by the citation, which is simply a name check on a site that publishes submissions from readers. Analysis of references (the numbering refers to today's version):

1. Name check on MTV there the page states quite clearly This site contains content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form. Such content is not representative of Viacom Media Networks.

2. List of articles by Josh Roush, not about him

3. Name check in brief article is about a 30 minute film made by someone else with one sentence stating that Roush restored it from an old VHS tape on boingboing.net

4. Local Cleveland website, quoting Roush's blog re a film made by someone else

5. A shout-out to Roush's blog and his fan-edited version of someone elses's trilogy to make one long film on The A.V. Club website. Beneath the entry Send your Great Job, Internet tips to GJI@avclub.com

6. Ditto about the same fan-edited film on Yahoo

7. Simple listing as being responsible for the title sequence on a non-notable documentary

8. This entry on the Cincinnati City Beat website has the most about the subject with 5 sentences about his friendship with the front man of a local Cincinnati band, To No End, and the video of one of their songs which is claimed to be about Roush.

9. Ditto about the same non-notable music video

10. Listing of a film for which he claims to be the cinematographer on readmoviesynopsis.com (an inferior version of IMDB), but which does not verify that. Note the "cinematagraphy" involved the live taping of a Jay and Silent Bob show in Australia

11. and 12. Listings verifying that another of his short films, The Mission, an "official selection" at two non-notable film festivals. It did not win awards at either of them. See Hollywood Reel Independent Film Festival 2016 winners, North Hollywood Cinefest 2016 winners

13. Brief review of the above film on a site called aintitcool.com.

In short... No awards. No major releases. No coverage of either the subject or his work even in proper industry publications such as Variety, let alone mainstream media.

Note to closing administrator The two keep !votes are from one-self-confessed paid editor, Establishment5 (talk · contribs), and from Kkc knight (talk · contribs), who clearly has a close association with the subject, see File:Josh Roush.jpg

Voceditenore (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the best efforts of a declared paid editor and another one who may have disclosed here, there is simply insufficient sourcing. As Voceditenore's analysis has shown , the references are mere notices or fan sites and other sources unreliable for notability. Sometimes, when someone resorts to a paid editor, they are actually notable but simply do not know how to write an article--we need a better way than the overloaded [[WP;Requested articles}} to deal with this; unfortunately, most of the time, they are simply not notable, or so borderline notable it will be very difficult to stand up to an AfD--those people who want to work as declared paid editors need to be very selective in what they accept, especially to overcome the inevitable close scrutiny. (It would seem likely to me that it would be difficult to earn a living at this if one is too selective about jobs at the rates usually charged, and most people needing the work may not be willing or able to pay the rates that a sufficiently skilled and selective professional editor would have to charge, which limits the field to those for whom it is just an incidental source of income.)

In this case, I do not want to discourage the editors for speaking up properly; this article would be deleted no matter who wrote it, for the subject is simply Not Yet Notable at this stage in his career. As an encouragement to honesty, I will be willing to try to help the declared paid editors here to rewrite this, if in a few years there is sufficient really reliable material. DGG ( talk ) 10:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. Artspam and/or vanity. Many thanks to Voceditenore for her meticulous investigation and to DGG for adding the perspective of our policies. I can only concur with their findings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Voceditenore's detailed analysis, which comprehensively demonstrates the subject's lack of third-party, independent verification.... fails WP:GNG. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2016 (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.