Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas 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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  12:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Rowsell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Searches simply found nothing actually better and nothing here is actually convincing, the best 1 source (NYTimes) never actually mentions him by name. SwisterTwister  talk  05:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * in looking beyond the article:


 * Comment: I'm concerned that a lot of the article tends to focus on online popularity. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Being popular on YouTube or Facebook (or other locations) can help make it more likely that someone will be covered in reliable sources, but this by itself will not give notability. There are dozens of extremely popular YouTubers and social media personalities that are fairly well known - even household names in their respective communities - but still fail notability guidelines overall. The same thing goes for publishing - you can write and publish, but unless you have coverage of your work the publications won't really accomplish much since it's generally assumed that an author/writer/journalist will publish work, sometimes in notable outlets. The media spots could be useful, however that would depend on whether he was the focus of the interview or if he was brought in as an expert commentator. I know that interviews tend to be depreciated and in some cases seen as a primary source, however there's a huge difference between an interview that focuses specifically on the guest and a radio spot where someone is brought in to comment on a topic, as they're not the focus of the spot itself and the term "interview" can be applied to the latter type of radio appearance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It also looks like some of the interviews weren't in places Wikipedia would count as reliable anyway. In the case of the Paganism, Christianity and the European Soul spots, they're discussions that were posted to YouTube and don't appear to have been held by a media outlet that Wikipedia would see as a RS - although that's mildly moot since Roswell was brought in to comment on the general topic of the video/discussion and isn't the actual focal person. Looking closer at the other topics under the interview section, it looks like these are all cases where Roswell was brought in to comment on a topic. Being brought in to comment on something doesn't really show notability on here and being a potential reliable source or authority on something does not give automatic notability. Hopefully there will be something out there in Google, Highbeam, or the academic databases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. He seems to be quite knowledgeable on his chosen topics, but I just can't find anything to show that he's notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. He hasn't been the focus of any coverage that has been specifically about him or his works and he wouldn't qualify under WP:ACADEMIC since his work hasn't really been picked up anywhere, or at least not in the places Wikipedia would consider for that criteria. It's actually incredibly difficult to argue notability for scholars since they rarely get the amount of coverage or references necessary to pass GNG or ACADEMIC and Roswell is just another scholar who falls short of what is needed. This doesn't mean that he can't be good at what he does, just that it's really hard to pass guidelines. I think that the best I found was this review by the Morning Star, which is considered a tabloid on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2016 (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.