Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Crowley

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 of the debate was Delete. Three deletes, including the nominator, one keep (Monicasdude), and some anon votes which are discounted, makes 75% delete. Stifle (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Crowley

This was prod-ed, but the prod was removed without comment. Mr. Crowley has an IMDB page [1], but I'm not sure that his credits are notable enough to merit inclusion, so I'm listing it here. Be careful about taking claims in the article at face-value; I couldn't find any credited connection to "Cops", for instance. -Colin Kimbrell 14:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I don't see anything either: [2]. PJM 15:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Regular producer/writer for TV documentary series that's been running on the History Channel since the last millennium, among many other credits. Here's a randomly selected episode credit [3]. Behind-the-camera craftsworkers are at least as notable as Pokemon characters, NFL taxi squad players, and the inevitably mentioned Air Force Amy. Monicasdude 20:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Thank you, Monicasdude, for the recommended "strong keep." As for someone that's been involved in more than fifteen years of work in the industry, it's nice to see that others appreciate -- or acknowledge -- their work. I'm sure that Mr. Kimbrell understands that IMDb while being a helpful tool, is not anywhere near a complete clearinghouse for credits. There are literally HUNDREDS of shows that Mr. Crowley produced that are not currently listed on the IMDb database (not an unusual occurrance-- type in other known execs & producers, and you'll often find major gaps in their career timelines). It's curious to note that Mr. Kimbrell doesn't find Cops... the Academy Awards... the Emmys... Big Brother... Headliners & Legends... Trading Spouses... or any other number 'tof listed series, as "notable enough." All seem to represent either major milestones in recent TV history or as standouts in their form. Mr Kimbrell has a page at Wikipedia, yet has but a single IMDb listing. What is the standard for acceptance? I certainly wouldn't judge whether he deserves a listing, but I note the fact for others to see. And, yes, if Air Force Amy has a home here, why not a producer who does a daily battle in the TV production trenches?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.22.64.226 (talk • contribs)

• Jeez, a lot to respond to there. The events and shows are notable, but not all the people connected with them necessarily are. To put it a different way, Yankee Stadium is notable, but the construction worker who installed the seats may or may not be. Most of Mr. Crowley's credits on IMDB are as a "Supervising Producer", which is kind of the middle management of TV work: not writing full time, and not creating shows, but more the logistical odds-and-ends that need to be done to get the show on the air. It's important work, and probably interesting work, but not in my mind encyclopedic, which is why I posted this here. His credit for "Big Brother" was as a "story editor", which is a position of similarly ambiguous importance, and I stand by my skepticism of his role in "Cops" or "Trading Spouses" (as well as the award shows), since the article doesn't describe his role or cite sources and there are zero google hits connecting him to those in any way, shape, or form. For all we know, he could've been Assistant Monkey Wrangler #4, or the intern they sent out for coffee and bagels. I agree that his writing work for the History Channel is the most noteworthy aspect of his career, but it's still something of a slender reed. Air Force Amy isn't really relevant to the discussion for two reasons: Her notability is grounded in widespread media coverage, which Mr. Crowley doesn't appear to have received, and furthermore, the "cruft justifies more cruft" argument generally doesn't generate much traction here, as it's much more easily turned around to use as an argument to delete both entries. I'm also confused as to your remark about me having a page at Wikipedia, since there's no entry for Colin Kimbrell (nor should there be, at this point). I have a user page, as does every other editor of the site, but that's not really connected to the encyclopedia itself. If Mr. Crowley wants to start editing here, and then adds a few details about his personal and professional life to his user page, more power to him; we've got a lot of work that still needs to be done on our coverage of TV shows. -Colin Kimbrell 20:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll add a comment or two about Mr. Crowley's credentials. It's very misleading to insinuate that he was "Assistant Monkey Wrangler #4" on any production, because he is an experienced veteran professional who commands great respect and admiration from his peers. He has indeed been a showrunner and writer for a number of series, and over the past decade has been a producer for many top shows, from Big Brother to World's Most Amazing Videos to NBC's Headliners and Legends. He is so well-known in the television community that he is featured in the FinalDraft script software's "Why I Write" advertising campaign. Most recently, he has made an impact in the Los Angeles media scene with his "Hollywood Thoughts" website, which breaks news about Los Angeles cultural shifts, while adding insight about its history-- from the recent closing of Schwab's, to coverage of the student immigration protests, and over the weekend, a tribute to a newsstand vendor that was picked up by the LA Daily News and has led to a groundswell for a memorial statue (the site laobserved.com links to him regularly). Perhaps Mr. Crowley can post his extensive CV to give a better idea. Strong recommendation to stay.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.22.64.229 (talk • contribs)

The things that you're saying about his credits are interesting and useful, but we need verifiable sources to confirm them if they're going to be in the encyclopedia. Right now, we don't have those, and in absence of proof, it's not trustworthy. That's the point I was trying to make with the "Assistant Monkey Wrangler" remark: Information that's unsourced and unsourcable is pretty much worthless. You seem to have a good knowledge base about Mr. Crowley's career; if you have references that meet the guidelines for this stuff (listed at WP:CITE and WP:OR), please add them to the article, as that's the best thing you can do to swing public opinion your way in a deletion discussion. -Colin Kimbrell 23:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: See JON M.CROWLEY at IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0189752/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9am9uIGNyb3dsZXl8ZnQ9MXxteD0yMHxsbT01MDB8Y289MXxodG1sPTF8bm09MQ__;fc=1;ft=20;fm=1 See: http://www.scriptwritersshowcase.com/speakers.html Jon is one of the speakers featured as INDUSTRY LEADERS at the Scriptwiriters showcase this weekend in Universal City.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.22.64.229 (talk • contribs)

Reardless of how many times you voice your opinion, it will only be counted once. If you have subsequent comments after voicing your opinion, you should use either no header, or a neutral one such as Comment, instead of filling the thread with Keeps or Deletes. The IMDB biography you cite was already mentioned in the nomination, and the link to the workshop isn't very illustrative, since it's just his name on a big list of speakers. -Colin Kimbrell 18:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. What do you need, buddy... and why do you have it out for this guy? Look, Hollywood is a town of relationships. The guy is well-known and always working because of his pedigree. That's easy for everyone in town to recognize... why not you? This is the problem: The land of skin-ripping LaCrosse players is too far removed from the reality of this industry. Hire someone local to concentrate on these type of entries. Must every single gig have a URL to make you happy... and feeling "Trusting"? He's all over the web-- just google him. I think that whatever anybody says here, won't rate with you (Us: "He's a featured speaker at an event sponsored by big companies" You: "so what." Us: "He helped create a new form of software for TV writers (see Final Draft site)" You: "so what."). Whatever. At the end of the day, You're the guy holding the delete button. More power to you. All we can do is holler at the owners of this site to get people that are better informed in your position. As far as TS is concerned, I know that he helped format the very first show... and then streamlined the field operation on the second season. Day-to-day middle management? In your view of the world, probably so. In ours, No. He helped CREATE the LOOK, PACING, AND VOICE of a top-rated show. Not bad for a seat-installer, huh? As for cops? Hey-- was the 'net around in the first season when he did his time in the old Barbour-Langley Marina offices? Geez. Obviously the guy has a successful record. I've worked for him-- he also created/ produced the Animal Planet show, "That's My Baby" (in both primetime & daytime. Daytime was a #1 hit for that show. Marta Kauffman said several times it was her "very favorite" show. Again, notable that the producer of the nation's #1 show (that's "Friends," Colin-- in case you missed it watching the LaCrosse team). He also helped create the first blind date show on TV ("A Dating Story" for TLC). I know at one point, he was doing, like, five shows at the same time. I think only Bruckheimer has more shows going. Man. It makes my head spin that there are people who live and breathe this net stuff so completely.That some dude -- a student at Duke University -- is sitting in judgment of this guy's career-- blows me away. "Those that do, create. Those who can't..." I guess sit on a computer all day. More importantly, it's amazing to see how easy it is for someone to dismiss the integrity of his peers from the pulpit of his dorm. So be it. The annonimity of the web allows for this to happen on a daily basis. And, yes, the "Amy" argument IS relevant: It's good to know that women who spread their legs in a Nevada double-wide are good enough for the 'ol 'Wik... but a guy that makes millions of people laugh or cry on a nightly basis, doesn't rate. Go ahead, Colin... hit the delete button. It's US... we're all wrong... and YOU are always right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.22.64.226 (talk • contribs) .

Why are you talking about lacrosse? Do you mean the town, or the college, or the sport? I'm confused... -Colin Kimbrell 21:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As for some of the other stuff, that's all great if it's true, but none of it is sourced, and most of it isn't even in the article. To re-iterate an earlier point: If you want this article to be kept, the best thing you can do is find a mention of Mr. Crowley's work in a book or a newspaper or a magazine and add it to the article as a citation. It doesn't have to be online; just add it like you would've added a book citation for a term paper back in college. -Colin Kimbrell 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you note that you worked for Mr. Crowley, I should probably also call your attention to WP:AUTO, which states, "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." In that spirit, if you do decide to improve the article, please try to keep your work in line with WP:NPOV.-Colin Kimbrell 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (though weak) per WP:BIO, apparently not among "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers", other claims to notability unsourced. Sandstein 08:52, 8 April 2006 (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.