Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Rowsell

Tom Rowsell

[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 work have worked with (or work) with Hope not Hate. Not 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]

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]