Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Rowsell

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 SPA !votes have been disregarded in this close. Two sources have been presented and discussed. The International Far-Right is published by a reputable publisher, but is barely more than a mention. The other ([1]) contains slightly more information, but is best characterized as a blog post (see WP:BLPSPS). This is clearly below the WP:GNG threshold which require substantial coverage in multiple, reliable sources. No evidence has been presented to support the argument that he is a notable film maker, only an entry for a minor film award (they even say explicitly that the entries ranged from "professional products from established companies to home-produced DVDs"[2]). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rowsell[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NBIO; only one source, and even that source lacks WP:SIGCOV. The subject may well become notable in the future, but I don't think it is now. There is an AfD from 2016 under his full name which resulted in deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Rowsell. Ffranc (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The peer-reviewed academic work discussing this alt-right figure appears to emphasize his notability. We can't link directly to Breitbart News due to its Spam blacklist status, but that would alos appear. There's probably more academic discourse on this particular Youtube channel and its influence to pull from as well. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos:, @Katolophyromai:: Are you able to find further discussion about the subject of this entry in media or academic sources? :bloodofox: (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the information in the cited source already verifies Rowsell as notable per WP:FILMMAKER (1). Krakkos (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sceaf:: The source quoted is written by a political activist group who the Wikipedia legal team have previously ruled are not an unbiased souce. The book is not an academic publication therefore cannot be "peer reviewed" - the article is misleading listing only one of the numerous publications the journalist wrote for. The full list of publications were included in an earlier version of the page which was deleted. The quotes from the 'Ancient North Eurasians' video do not represent the way Tilak's theory was contrasted with the actual theory the author endorses which is supported by Harvard studies cited in the video description. This page should either be deleted or revised. If the subject is notable as a film maker then a filmography ought to be included or mention of the work as a film maker using imdb as the source. Sceaf: (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article's talk page regarding this user's attempts to invalidate this high-quality source and turn the entry into a puff page for the subject. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: fails the BASIC test The Ace in Spades (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is clearly notable, academic source makes that clear. Probably a lot more coverage out there. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick search, I was able to find various other WP:RS-compliant sources. I believe notability should be well established now. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the sources can be said to contain significant coverage about Rowsell ("addresses the topic directly and in detail", "more than a trivial mention"). The International Far-Right seems to have the most coverage, but it's just four sentences, where it mentions him as an example of someone who has discussed a certain topic. The other sources even more just mention him in passing, as one of several people who attended a meeting etc. Ffranc (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statements from experts noting referring to the "the alt-right’s go-to expert on all matters Indo-European" would seem to indicate clear notability, as would coverage of the subject's activities by notable organization Hope not Hate. There's also plenty more one could add to the article: Hope not Hate 2019 discusses Rowsell's background with the alt-right and connection to notable neo-Nazis and "folkish" Germanic Neopagan groups that is not currently in the article. Clearly, if these scholars and experts on the topic are willing to make a statement like that and Hope not Hate provide coverage of him, he's notable enought to merit it. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Importance or influence are not the same things as notability. There are sources with coverage of him, but they lack significant coverage, as defined in the guideline I've linked to. I'm sure Rowsell will have a Wikipedia page one day, but we need to be patient. Ffranc (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. that his views and activities are absurd does not make him non-notable. There's sufficient discussion in the osurces. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, which of the sources would you say have sufficient discussion about Rowsell? I can't see how the current sources make him more notable than, say, a pop group with an article based on concert listings - "band X played at festival A where also bands Y and Z played". Ffranc (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: both the book and the website which form the bulk of this content are from the same activist organisation - Hope not Hate. Sceaf (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. Hope not Hate is an organization, and this is a peer-reviewed book published by academic press Routledge. Some of the experts and scholars involved in the peer-reviewed book have worked with (or work) with Hope not Hate. Not at all surprising given the topic. Note that before this vote, this user has attempted to scrub and rewrite the article in a promotional manner a few times now (example).:bloodofox: (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this user's edit history is very interesting in light of their comments and attempts to turn the article into a promotional piece for the subject and when that failed, to have it removed entirely: Consider this edit for example and edits like this from back in 2016 that demonstrate a particular fascination with the Rowsell family name. Here's one where he attempts to get the phrase "far-right" removed from Wikipedia's Breitbart article, a media company for which Rowsell wrote. In fact, this user's edit history aligns with topics either covered by or topics that would be covered by Rowsell on his YouTube channel, or reflects a general interest in the Rowsell family name. Sceaf, are you Tom Rowsell or are you somehow otherwise closely connected to the subject? If so, it would be wise to announce a conflict of interest here. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Not notable. Robincard (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Not notable, there are YouTubers with a far larger viewer base who don't have Wikipedia pages. Rowsell certainly isn't relevant enough either as an academic, a YouTuber or as a right wing figure to warrant a Wikipedia article. Definite delete from me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:B404:9200:C9EE:7968:CBE6:A788 (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this anonymous IP user has not edited before weighing in here and earlier version's of the IP's votes repeatedly leveled personal attacks at myself. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: He simply isn't notable enough; a few thousand YouTube views and a mention in a Hope Not Hate report isn't substantial enough to deserve an article for my money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.180.101 (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another new IP account chiming in: This is this account's second edit. This editor is also misrepresenting sourcing in the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2020 (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.