Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Wilson (producer)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. After discounting the comments from sock puppets and giving less weight to editors with a conflict of interest, there doesn't seem to be much appetite to keep the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Josh Wilson (producer)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No sources that meet WP:GNG, there are a lot of mentions. Other sources are sponsored by some firm. Forbes 30 under 30 is marginally helpful. TLA (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, England,  and Jamaica.  Delta  space 42  (talk • contribs) 10:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Forbes' 30 Under 30 is definitely helpful; it's an independent, reliable source directly covering the subject. The Sunday Times article also indicates notability. Toughpigs (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Toughpigs, The Sunday Times article is marked "promoted content" by Quickbooks. So likely not WP:INDEPENDENT. TLA  (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Sunday Times piece was published to shed light on a specific area of business. The user’s usage as a case study is genuine and should certainly be seen as a notable source. BVWilson (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a complete fabrication of the truth. The sources are from numerous reputable publications and were covered with editorial integrity. To say the Forbes piece is marginally helpful is borderline outrageous. I believe it is ranked as the world’s number one business publication across sectors.
 * The user was never an employee or affiliated with Quickbooks. The dealings of the Sunday Times with any private company is relative to their business model and does not affect the genuine nature of the user’s inclusion. BVWilson (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: To the contrary sources meet WP:GNG. Notable sources include: Sky Sports, Forbes, Channel 4, Harper’s Baazar, The Sunday Times and Management Today. Amongst others. Because an article is sponsored by an outside firm does not jeopardize the editorial integrity pertaining to the inclusion of an independent individual who is not connected to the firm sponsoring. Also, even if the accusation held merit, that is only seen in one instance across many sources. —— BVWilson (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

BVWilson is likely a WP:COI. Name and WP:SPA-like contributions seem to suggest that. The sources mentioned by BVWilson are indeed WP:RELIABLE, but aren't even close to WP:SIGCOV. The Forbes, as I mentioned, is closest, but fails WP:100WORDS. The Times piece doesn't even have a byline, as it is paid content and not written by a staff writer of The Times / Sunday Times. Sure, Josh Wilson is impressive, but does not appear to meet WP:GNG for Wikipedia, unfortunately. If you would like, BVWilson, you can try to use WP:THREE. TLA (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  23:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree with TLA, the sources on this article don't meet SIGCOV. GraziePrego (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Duplicate !vote : I disagree with GraziePrego. The inclusions are clearly WP:SIGCOV. Josh Wilson is clearly quoted ad nauseam throughout his sources. Outside of perhaps The Times - one could argue - every source meets WP:GNG. The Forbes piece is highly reputable and marks a significant accolade, irrespective of WP:100WORDS. BVWilson (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You only get one vote @BVWilson, please strike one of your two “keep” votes. GraziePrego (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The last “keep” vote is stricken from the record. BVWilson (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 01:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep The article's sources, including Forbes' 30 Under 30, Sky Sports, Channel 4, Harper’s Bazaar, The Sunday Times, and Management Today, collectively demonstrate notable coverage in alignment with Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (GNG). While The Sunday Times article is labeled as 'promoted content,' its use as a case study in a respected publication contributes to the subject's overall notability. The Forbes recognition, in particular, signifies a noteworthy accomplishment. Disregarding word count, the subject's inclusion in reputable publications and industry lists establishes a clear pattern of notability. The claim of conflict of interest should be evaluated based on content rather than contributor, as the sources and accolades fulfill GNG criteria, justifying a keep vote." KarKuZoNga (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Strike, sock Star   Mississippi  02:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment - There are a lot of primary sources here, and primary sources do not count towards SIGCOV. It would be helpful if, per the nom.'s suggestion, someone presented the two or three best sources for discussion. The Forbes 30 under 30 must surely be oe of those though, and I think this might meet presumed notability under WP:PRODUCER. Criterion 4(c) has The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention. I would prefer to see some source discussion though, as that would show how to improve the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.