Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Rowley

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. In order for a subject to be notable, there must be significant coverage of that person in their individual capacity in reliable sources. bd2412 T 00:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Rowley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

There appears to be very little coverage of the person himself. Provided sources, if of any length, are about a technology named Pylon Cam that he invented; he only gets passing mentions in these. The other refs are primary and promotional. - As for the list of awards and honors, it looks impressive until you follow them up and notice that the awards aren't for him but for productions he has worked on - again, passing mentions (e.g. [1]). I don't see sufficient personal notability demonstrated here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (copied from talk page --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)) I just found your reasoning. It appears mostly due to the cited references on the Pylon Cam and awards. I'm not sure how I rectify the Pylon Cam debate without publishing internal documents. I know a lot of his former R&D team at ESPN and they acknowledge that executives do the interviews about new technology, while the producers and lead R&D personnel still get credit among industry veterans. In this case, I'm curious what you would expect me to link to for something that is often considered just "made by ESPN," when the creator would like to get credit for it after leaving?[reply]

Equally, in regards to the awards, it's pretty common for media producers to receive credit for the awards that their shows receive. This is an industry I know pretty well, and marking accolades by program is the standard. Almost never does an individual producer get an award in the TV business; it always goes to the shows. Is there a concern he didn't work on these shows or would it be better if I linked to archives of on-air footage of Marc? ESPN isn't searchable by producer, but I know how to find it if I need to.

LMK, - HK Hwkeyser (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is not with the content/form/origin of the Pylon Cam references, but with the fact that these are about Pylon Cam - not about Rowley. To have an article about a person, as opposed to about their work, we require in-depth, independent coverage of the person themselves. As an example, if all coverage of Facebook were to merely state, somewhere in passing, "By the way, this was created by Mark Zuckerberg", then we would still have a dozen articles about Facebook, but none about Mark Zuckerberg. It appears to me that Pylon Cam has received a certain amount of coverage, and it might be possible to source a short article about that (although I wouldn't depend on it); but the inventor has not, and thus we should not have an article about him.

We don't generally regard "having been part of a team that worked on something that received an award", as equivalent to "having received a award", but I'm admittedly not too sure regarding the Emmys, and maybe there's even some special convention here. One reason these things are being put up for discussion is so that better-informed heads can weigh in :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can see few articles that mention the person - one main one on the person [2] and a few other minor mentions - [3][4][5]. Those with minor mentions are generally ignored for notability assessment, therefore you need a couple more that focus on the person like the first link to satisfy the GNG criteria. While Emmy awards are generally notable, the particular awards are given to him as part of a team rather than specifically the person, see the number of people listed in the awards (one of them appears to give more than a hundred names for a single award) - [6][7][8], therefore I'm inclined to ignore the Emmys, while the others appear to be very minor awards. At the moment I'd say he marginally fails the notability criteria, but a couple more like the Feed Magazine article (possibly just one more) might pass him. Hzh (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This was a tough one because he seems to be an inventor of some accomplishment - the Emmy's being a signfier of that if not in this case individual notability. I don't see enough indications that Feed, which doe seem to be the best source, is RS enough to combine with other things we know to be true to get to notability. I think he's one RS profile away from notability but is for now a delete for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reads relatively promotionally, and I'm not convinced the sourcing is quite there to get him over the WP:GNG line. SportingFlyer T·C 08:08, 24 June 2019 (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.