Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Wood


 * 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.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 10:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Josh Wood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional piece by articles agent. Lacks assertion of notability satisfying WP:ENT or WP:BIO. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is primary, press releases, imdb, listings and variations of this article. None are relible sources that provide any level of independent coverage about Wood. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Lots of info out there for Josh Wood, just not this one. Delete per nom. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-significant roles as actor and non-notable films as producer. Fails GNG, NACTOR and all the related guidelines. At best, WP:TOOSOON Cavarrone (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. — Ed! (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable person in the film industry, significant role as a film producer and quite significant role as an Productions Executive in New Line Cinema, I am the only one here relying on sources. Josh Wood has been involved in 14 worldwide noticeable film projects including The Hobbit: There and Back Again (2014); The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013); The Conjuring (2013); Jack the Giant Slayer (2013); The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey  (2012); Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012); New Year's Eve (2011); Horrible Bosses (2011); Valentine's Day (2010); The Final Destination (2009); Appaloosa (2008); Hairspray (2007); Final Destination 3 (2006).
 * The article has been on Wikipedia for years, after correcting/adding references all of the sudden it was considered for deletion. The main reference is IMDb and IMDb Pro which shows significance of the person and the notability of facts through many 3rd party websites. Studio executives don't get as much attention as actors working on films, that's a fact. So, far no one here really about filmmaking industry.
 * "If the person was not significant he would never be published in the Getty Images with BAFTA winning actress Helena Bonham Carter. --AllisonID (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that User:AllisonID showed up just yesterday and every one of her posts have concerned Josh Wood. Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * IMdB is a user edited site and as such not WP:RS. Does nothing to show notability.  Having your picture taken with someone notable does not make you notable either. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Gtwfan52 Note that before any credits posted on IMDb page is being verified through out by the IMDb staff. Second of all Getty Images is one of the main notable sources in the world. It was not self taken photograph and it was not self credited nor self edited. --AllisonID (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Allison, that is not my opinion, it is in WP:RS. IMbD is not considered a reliable reference by Wikipedia.  You have no argument for that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Gtwfan52 I am new in Wikipedia but I decided to contribute yesterday by adding/corrected links to improve the article not get it deleted. If IMDb was not a source on Wikipedia I think it wouldnt be quoted all over the Wikipedia on entertainment articles. --AllisonID (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Gtwfan52 Many other international articles are not self edited. However administrators ignore all the sources by trying to prove their side of view. That is not neutral. Why are you trying to delete this article so bad? The article has been here for years. I just added citations and it made you all want to get it out of Wikipedia badly. --AllisonID (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * IMDB can be used to source certain "facts", but can not be used to establish notability because they are not professionally vetted and include virtually everything. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 17:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Gtwfan52 Exactly! But you are not accepting any fact at all. And you seem want to get rid of the article rather than having any other issues. --AllisonID (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability established through many other international articles. If you dont understand some of the articles, you can use Google translate which translates whole page at the click --AllisonID (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Gtwfan52 The sources are published on the article. Even BBC is not reliable source as anyone can tell lies and that can be published on their channel, website and other media quickly picks it up. It was a big scandal in the UK about notability of such a large media corporation. (refer to the case of Jimmy Savile when the accused man was not even involved in the case) and after that BBC faced the large criticism from the public and the government. This clearly means that there are no NOTABLE sources except documentaly proven facts. In this case the ENTIRE Wikipedia can be wiped off as all of the articles lacking the actual NOTABLE and reliable sources. --AllisonID (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as significant person. Agree with Allison. You have to be significant person to be at the Golden Globe Awards, attend Moscow Film Festival, BFI London Film Festival, to attend BAFTA Film Awards.--RachelKart (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — RachelKart (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete The best source we have is IMDb and the credits in there are not enough for WP:NACTOR. Mcewan (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 18:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The article being attacked. IMDb and other international sources standing strong for the significance and importance of the person. The article has been on Wikipedia for more than 2 years and now being attacked and administrators have strong desire to get rid of the article. Other articles about actors and producers must be deleted as well as their sources are not notable nor reliable at all. Anyone can say anything to the journalists but that is not a prove of the fact nor it's notability! IMDb is reliable source worldwide. If you could easily submit information on IMDb without confirmation check run by the staff, I think everyone would have an IMdb page like we all do have a facebook page. --EmilyGlat (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Article keep being vandalized! --EmilyGlat (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — EmilyGlat (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * More like this AfD keeps getting vandalized by SPAs. He hasn't directed a notable film, and nor has he had a major role in one. Thus, he fails WP:NACTOR. IMDb is a long, long way from passing WP:RS. As for my search for sources: appears to be someone else, as does this, and the majority of sources I can find are on this person. So this Josh Wood fails WP:GNG as well. In fact, to be honest, I would almost suggest nuking this article, and rewriting it about the hairdresser, whom actually appears to be notable! (there are also multiple mentions of him in styling articles online, and the like, such as ,  as two examples) Delete this current article certainly. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - this has a snowball's chance of being kept. The subject is clearly not notable and the desperate sock-spam here is hilarious. AFDs are not decided on the basis of "votes" so registering multiple accounts to vote multiple times is a complete waste of time, especially if none of your alternate accounts are going to make policy-based arguments. Stalwart 111  23:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest salt too. Repeated recreation. Joshua Wood, Josh Wood (I), Josh Wood*. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree, except the hairdresser I found with this name might pass WP:GNG! Lukeno94 (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. Oh the irony! Agree with salting (though Josh Wood (hairdresser) could be created). I see the subject's company was co-nom'd here (but not linked?), I have now formally AFD'd it on its own - Articles for deletion/Josh Wood Productions (3rd nomination). Cheers, Stalwart 111  10:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is ironic, your suggestion does violate naming policies however! When I originally looked at this, the company hadn't been nominated, unless I wasn't paying attention properly (wouldn't be the first time!) Lukeno94 (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I concede it does, yes. We'll need to work that out if you genuinely think the other Josh Wood is notable - then watch it like hawks to ensure it doesn't get reverted back to this one. Yeah, not sure when the co-nom note was added but it doesn't matter - it's up now. Cheers, Stalwart 111  10:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm more than willing to have a discussion on a talk page or here. I can tell he passes BLP1E as the Telegraph article is about his new salon, and the Independent one is an interview with him. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Have started a thread on your talk page on that basis. Stalwart 111  12:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is here for anyone who wants to join in. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The co-nomination was not part of the original afd (the second article was under duiscussion at DRV). It was quietly slipped in here. After significant discusion and without notice. I've now removed it as an inapropriate addition. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The second article was not under discussion at DRV or else I would have not added it. It was an obvious addition as it was effectively an extension of this article (similar to adding articles about a band's albums when their article is under AfD).  Still, it's got its own AfD now, so it doesn't really matter. Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify my statement, The article was at DRV when I nominated it for deletion. I did not intend to infer that it was still at DRV when it was added by Black Kite. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of salt replace this with an article on the hairdresser. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Snow delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG  Go   Phightins  !  20:59, 15 January 2013 (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.