Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Rowe


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Holly Rowe

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   —Richard (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Previously speedied by me for lack of assertion of notability; re-created today so I figured I'd refer this to the AFD community for resolution. If this article is to be included in Wikipedia, then we would be opening the door to having an article on every sportscaster on every major network. Richard (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) She is linked to by many articles already and mentioned in a bunch of others, so people obviously feel there should be an article on her,
 * Keep -
 * At first, I was impressed and taken aback by how many articles link to Holly Rowe. However, on further investigation, many of these articles only link to her because she is in the list of ESPN personalities at the bottom of the article.  In such articles, the article text itself doesn't mention her name (e.g. Jim Rome is Burning or Bonnie Bernstein).  In articles that do mention her explicitly, the mention is usually to note that she was one of the ESPN reporters (e.g. Mike Patrick).  Then there are the "List of... " articles.  The best one is Sideline reporter where she is mentioned as one of the "Notable sideline reporters".  Which begs the question... what exactly is she notable for other than being a sideline reporter?  Oh, there is one incident ... the one mentioned in the Ron Franklin article.  Right, sweetheart... that makes you notable... that Ron Franklin called you "sweetheart" and got smacked down for it.  Woohoo!  Such is the stuff that Wikipedia notability is made of.  --Richard (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There were close to 40 or so that explicitly mentioned her in the text of the article (not in the ESPN personalities navbox) before they started filtering down as links. Those were the ones I was talking about, as the statement I made was before any of those were showing up. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(2) She is one of the only ESPN personalities without an article (See: List of ESPN personalities, List of ESPN College Football personalities, etc.).
 * The question being whether every ESPN personality should have an article solely because he/she is an ESPN personality or whether they should be notable for some other reason. --Richard (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it is a point worth considering if others of the same caliber are considered notable (a president, if you will), why a special case would be made to delete this one. That was all I was bringing up. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(3) I certainly do not feel it would be "opening the door to having an article on every sportscaster on every major network", as the nom said; at least not any more than it has already been opened by the so-mentioned personalities already described. (in the lists, and other places) There is already a large president for people as notable as this to be included. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yuck. You're right.  The door is already wide open and the whole host of ESPN personalities past and present have tramped through it.  Let's see how this AFD goes.  If the consensus is running towards Delete, I'll nominate the rest of the list.  --Richard (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever you feel is best; I personally find the articles on ESPN personalities helpful, but I'll go along with whatever everyone else decides. Cardsplayer4life (talk)
 * Keep, per Richard's observation. How many other articles have to go if this one does? Criticisms of the present content of the article, e.g. Baileypalblue, should be resolved by improving the article not deleting it.Simon Dodd (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the relevant copyvio policy, which states that pages are to be speedy deleted if all their content is copyvio and there is no prior non-infringing version to revert to. Alternatively, you could be bold and write a non-infringing version yourself.  Baileypalblue (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Edited to change wording.Simon Dodd (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any perceived copyvio issues have been fixed now. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Woops, I think I was editing at the same time as you, Simon, and may have overtaken your edits. Apologies, mate. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. :) Simon Dodd (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per Cardsplayer4life and for having received an in depth article in the Daily Oklahoman (link) as well an many other mentions (see Google News). Icewedge (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, when I go to news.google.com and search on "Holly Rowe", only 3 search results come back and none of them seem to establish notability. Can you provide a URL which will display these "many other mentions" that you are referring to? --Richard (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to filter your search for all dates, not just the last week, which is the Google News default. Icewedge (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as COPYVIO. This article is copied, with a few word changes and minor transpositions, from Holly Rowe's ESPNMediaZone bio.  There is no salvageable prior draft.  Baileypalblue (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyedited the article and fixed all the parts that could be construed as copyright issues. (Tried not to delete any of the actual information since that isn't copyrightable, just fixed anything that even remotely resembled the source.) Also, added some more info that is relevant. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is a relevant article about a noteworthy individual. I find it disheartening that an article such as this about a female sportscaster would be deleted while all the male sportscaster articles are allowed, in the links provided above. There should not be different standards imposed just because this person is female. Hogvillian (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please leave gender politics out of this. The first version of the article was speedied by me because it did not assert notability.  The second version is better written than the first but still does not assert notability unless we assert that all ESPN personalities are notable by the very fact that they are ESPN personalities.  This then suggests that every sportscaster of a major broadcast or cable network is equally notable.  This is not my definition of notability although I concede that the odds of reversing this precedent looks slim.  I should comment that when I visited a handful of the other articles on ESPN personalities, most of them had some sort of notable sports career prior to becoming an ESPN personality.  Holly Rowe has no other claim to notability other than being an ESPN personality (and I argue that is not a sufficient claim).  --Richard (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that gender should stay out of this (I don't think this article was targeted because the person is female). It succeeds on the merits mentioned above, so there is no need to make it a gender issue. I personally believe that both being an ESPN personality (I don't think anyone would argue Kirk Herbstreit or people like that were non-notable even though they are notable because they are on ESPN), and being mentioned in other media stories about her per Icewedge above makes her notable enough for inclusion. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per above. GoCuse44 (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2009 (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.