Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Wood Productions (3rd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Tone 21:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Josh Wood Productions (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)
Sources provided are a combination of user-generated content, social media (Facebook, etc) and the company's own website. No third-party media coverage to establish WP:CORPDEPTH to be found. Company has not produced or contributed to the production of any notable works. Created by a sock-puppeteer dedicated to promoting the subject. Stalwart111 03:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article with this title was deleted on 3 January (2nd nomination) and this article was created in its place. CSD was declined because the article creator argued that this was a different subject. Without being able to see the previous version, this is difficult to qualify. Regardless, this subject (new or not) would seem to also fail notability guidelines. Stalwart111 03:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - could we have the history of the previous article restored to see if it's G4-worthy? Lukeno94 (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was sent here from DRV because the G4 deletion was (possibly) not appropriate.[1] Thincat (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, but AllisonID is one of the sockpuppeters, and she was the only one who called for the undelete. Of course, I'm sure the admin looked at the deleted history. Anyway, this should be Deleted as it fails WP:GNG due to the lack of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think we should simply discuss the article on its current merits, such as they may be. Thincat (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I didn't see it at DRV. I was involved with the other DRV for that day so never paid any attention to the one for this article. I brought this here after the SPI relating to the article creator and after noticing the previous AFD. But I'm glad it has all come together. Would be good to have a history restoration for the edits pre-deletions. If it gets deleted again, I think we should ask for the title to be salted. Stalwart111 11:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think we should simply discuss the article on its current merits, such as they may be. Thincat (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, but AllisonID is one of the sockpuppeters, and she was the only one who called for the undelete. Of course, I'm sure the admin looked at the deleted history. Anyway, this should be Deleted as it fails WP:GNG due to the lack of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was sent here from DRV because the G4 deletion was (possibly) not appropriate.[1] Thincat (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The independent sources are inadequate (and my own search has not turned up anything more). However, if User:Luisa Pisani (after she has been unblocked) or anyone else, wants the article userifying, I don't see why not. Thincat (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, LP has now been indef'd per NLT so... But, yeah, if someone else wants it in their userspace. Stalwart111 12:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no coverage outside IMDb, and the one TV special and 3 Russian films there are not enough for notability. Mcewan (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:CORP, no evidence of the required significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2013 (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.