Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/20th Century Studios

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to 20th Century Studios. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|20th Century Studios|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to 20th Century Studios.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Purge page cache

watch

20th Century Studios[edit]

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. Daniel (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter John Watson[edit]

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

This is still strongly promotional. Over half of the sources provided are by Watson, his publishers, or his blog Atlas & Boots. The "Climb Every Mountain" articles is probably sourced by Watson as well since it's the same article or same verbiage claimed under different "writers". It's a laundry list of name dropping publications contributed to, and not much secondary coverage by any independent sources. Consider WP:IBA AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and Tourism, Climbing, Writing, and 20th Century Studios. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging 78.18.228.191, Mattdaviesfsic, Philoserf. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero hits in RS on this person, his first thing in Google is his website, then his facebook, then various other social media, then just anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the Guardian article is written by his friend/partner? That's hardly neutral. That's a first in AfD, I've not seen an article written by someone with a close connection to the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi s partner is Kia Abdullah, not Anna Derrig. Scratchvideo (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written by someone he's hugging and being close with in the photos, and she writes about him in a loving fashion, it's hardly a neutral source, whatever their relationship is or was at the time. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about different articles.

> Derrig, Anna (2021-10-22). "Experience: I escaped an Arctic wildfire". The Guardian. Retrieved 2021-10-22. Derrig interviews him about his rescue in the Arctic during a wildfire.

> "Buying a house with a white man was instructive and depressing and it taught me about privilege". inews.co.uk. 2021-02-16. Retrieved 2021-02-26. This is just to support "Watson is in a relationship with British author Kia Abdullah." Scratchvideo (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, G17 Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article (look at earlier versions), by an SPA who made the article (plus photo) in a few edits and stopped (i.e. a UPE). The real problem is zero SIGCOV in quality RS. Outside of their own writings, nobody wants to cover them in any depth. The AfC editor who cleared it, and made a strange move, should be checked. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete. If it looks like a duck, waddles like one, and quacks like one then it's likely a dog? No, you got it - a duck! There can be no tolerance for paid articles. It's totally unfair to others. No offense to the subject who is likely reading this, but who also may not be the person in question who created it. This is not personal and by all means, if what is said here is not accurate please provide your feedback and make the case please. JRed176 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Linguist111 (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion: I am a WP:GNOME mainly focused on technical editing of reference/citations. I leave content discussion for most articles to others. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for your comments. The article is not paid for or promotional and I am not a paid editor. It is, however, my first attempt at a Wikipedia entry. Watson is a climber and writer I have followed for some time. When I went to look him up after reading his books, I was surprised to find he wasn't on Wikipedia even though many of his co-authors were. If you don't think this person should have a page, that's fine, although obviously, I do. Regarding the sources, from what I can see, there are 5 written by Watson himself. These were included to demonstrate Watson had written for the publications and were included based on feedback from previous Wikipedia editors. From what I can tell, the different writers AngusW🐶🐶F alludes to are journalists for UK newspapers, The Guardian, The Yorkshire Post and The Darlington & Stockton Times. These publications have a long history dating back to 1821, 1754 and 1847 respectively. I believe these are reliable. I genuinely think the subject is noteworthy as he had been interviewed by local and national newspapers and regional television, published books and written for national newspapers. If you think otherwise, that's fine. But again, I want to be very clear that this is not paid for or promotional and I am not a paid editor. Additionally, I did not create the inverted name. Finally, I would ask all commenters to remember the Wikietiquette and "do not bite the newbies". Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers. I'm sure you were all new once. Scratchvideo (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Scratchvideo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia has UPE sleeper accounts that are many years old (+4 years), but surface to write one article (usually a BLP or CORP), that is made as a fully formatted page (with photos and logos) on their first edit(s), and who then disappear. We should run a bot to look for them as they are mostly UPEs. Larger UPE firms make these accounts. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we bite the socks? Oaktree b (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can two journalists with different names publish the same exact article then, and a third journalist publish a rewrite of the said article? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman, Hannah, ed. (30 October 2020). "Climb every mountain: The Richmond outdoorsman hiking to the top of all 41 peaks in the Yorkshire Dales National Park". Retrieved 2021-02-26 – via Darlington & Stockton Times.
Nicoll, Carolyn, ed. (December 2020). "Climb Every Mountain". This Is Y. No. 4. pp. 28–31. Retrieved 2022-10-31 – via issuu.
Needham, Jenny, ed. (December 2020). "Climb every mountain". pp. 16–19. Retrieved 2022-10-31 – via Issuu.

The Chapman and Needham articles are identical. They are both signed by Peter Watson's email. The Nicoll article is a paraphrase of the other article plus a Q&A interview with Watson. How is this independently reliable? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I put the ed. there for Chapman and Needham since I question them as original authors. Nicoll is the magazine editor though. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are a number of newspapers/magazines mentioned, some of his profiles only show 1 article published. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly a promotional article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:SIGCOV. While technically this person passes GNG, his claims to fame are less than .... It seems that to be proud of climbing only 4 out of 7 mountains is like getting a B+ on a curved calculus test. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no real SIGCOV by any quality independent RS (and nothing in the quality climbing media), his refs are from his articles as a travel journalist. A UPE article, and where the UPE editor is now working on getting another journalist client a Wikipedia blp also using extensive amounts of refs linked to their own articles, Draft:Lottie Gross. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As previously discussed, the article is not paid for or promotional and I am not a paid editor. Scratchvideo (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability in climbing (never appears in any climbing magazines), despite his Wikipedia notability being for climbing.31.187.2.233 (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b and AngusWOOF's analysis of the references. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2023 (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.

Proposed deletions[edit]

Categories[edit]