Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert M. Bowman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 no consensus. Rx StrangeLove 05:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert M. Bowman

Delete Non-notable. Article created to illustrate notability of subject for purposes of user Striver's POV argument on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks.

Full bio of Mr. Bowman can be found here[1]

Judge notability for yourself. His primary claim to fame is his self-proclaimed directorship of the "Star Wars" program under "Republican and Democratic" administrations, when in fact he headed up a space defense program under Presidents Carter and Ford, prior to the proposal by President Reagan in 1983. We do not need a page for every program administrator, particularly as the program was non-notable prior to Reagan's 1983 proposal. On the basis of military service alone we also do not need a page for every person who attained the rank of O-5; there are Generals and Admirals who may not be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. Mmx1 03:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand The reason for creating the article may be in poor form, but the subject deserves an article. Bobby1011 03:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. Which criteria of WP:BIO would this article pass? The subject has 2 major claims to notability:
  • Director of "Star Wars" under "Republican and Democratic" administrations, which turns out to be hyperbole
  • His claims regarding 9-11.
How would this article be expanded? The autobiographical info on the link is heavy on non-notable details "In his wife's chancel drama ministry, Dr. Bowman has portrayed Peter, John the Baptist, and Caiaphus, among others." The preponderance of information on google about him is autobiographical, and outside of a few articles quoting him or his appearances, no one has seen fit to write about him. From what source would this article be expanded? The lack of verifiable third-party sources is for me a sign of non-notability. --Mmx1 04:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
He is also running for congress [2]. Bobby1011 04:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
He also passes Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics point 8, as he was awarded the "Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President's Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Republic Aviation Airpower Award, The Society of American Military Engineers' Gold Medal (twice), the Air Medal with five oak leaf clusters, and numerous other awards." He was an Associate Professor, Department Head, and Assistant Dean. Bobby1011 04:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
That criteria is for academic achievements. There are none listed here. Remember that this is essentially a campaign ad so take the claims with a grain of salt.
  • I'm not familiar with the Eisenhower Medal, but there appears to be a prestigious one awarded by the Eisenhower Foundation, starting in 1988. I find no indication he received one from the Eisenhower Foundation. Other recipients of the Dwight Eisenhower Medal from the Eisenhower Foundation are Walter Annenberg, Colin Powell, George HW Bush, George Shultz, Donald Rumsfeld, Gerald Ford, and Alan Greenspan. Does Robert Bowman's resume compare in any way to the other recipients?
Most likely he received another award (e.g. Johns Hopkins has a Milton S. Eisenhower medal) but did not cite the organization that gave it.
  • Google for the George F. Kennan Peace Prize only turns up Bowman's own sites and articles quoting that bio (bad sign).
  • Republic Aviation Airpower Medal, I imagine, would be from the firm Republic Aviation.
  • The President's Medal of Veterans for Peace is an award from a PAC, given by the President of Veterans for Peace, not the President of the US.
  • SAME is a professional organization like ACM or ICEE
I will not endeavor to count out how many assistant deans do not have a Wikipedia entry. This is the sort of stuff you find on a mid-level CEO's resume. Fancy-sounding titles that don't mean much.
--Mmx1 05:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
He is still a recipient of the Air Medal with five oak leaf clusters, which is unusual for a professor (note. the awards do not have to be for academic achievement). Other than that he is running for congress. That is notable in and of itself. I know, I know the WP:BIO page specifies holding office, but it also says that the list is not exclusionary. I think that a decent article may come from this, but I agree with you that what is there now serves no encyclopedic purpose. Bobby1011 05:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies/Academics states "Note that many academics are notable for reasons beyond their academic profession. The following are guidelines for judging the notability of academics based on their academic achievements." I feel that of all his claims to notability, his congressional candidacy and academic credentials are the least impressive.
--Mmx1 06:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Even if not a single of his merits where notable, wich i doubt, his combined achievments makes him notable. Even if not that, then for sure is teaming up with Andreas Von Buelow to creat a website that says USA did 9/11 make him notable. You can rest assured that we have a lot of much less notable people here on Wikipedia. I mean, is a porn actress in cheap movies really so much more notable? --Striver 11:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete notability is strongly suspect...I came upon several websites that appear to be pure propaganda. [3], [4] which originates from [5].--MONGO 13:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article is being used for off-topic non-encyclopedic propaganda, a "type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information". Example: [[6]]. See: Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Joema 13:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - His claim to notability seems to be his involvement with researcher questioning the official account of 9/11. I think his biography would be best maintained there, as it is now. Incidently, I'm surprised that Program Director of SDI would have been an O-5 position. I'm pretty sure a position like that would be filled by a major general, not a lieutenant colonel. Tom Harrison Talk 14:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
He wasn't heading up SDI, he headed up what he calls the "Star Wars" program before the term was coined. SDI under Reagan was headed by an O-9 (Lt. Gen James Alan Abrahamson), and he doesn't have an article. --Mmx1 14:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Smell the bias: "His biography should be on another page, and not on his biography article".

If the guy is notable enough to have a biography ANYWHERE in wikipedia, does that not make him notable enogh to have his own biography? This is really easy: He says USA did it, since people cant stand him, since he must be deleted. That is systematical bias. C'mon, only for being in Scholars for 9 11 Truth, and nothing more, mankes him notable.--Striver 15:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Come on, you're going in circles here. Elsewhere you claim this is a notable supporter of the 9/11_Bin_Laden_conspiracy_theory, then you claim he is notable because he is a supporter of such a theory. You want to know what he is? He's a retired Air Force administrator trying to prop up a mediocre political campaign with exaggerated claims about working on "Star Wars" and grossly inflating his awards. Claiming by ommission to have won the Eisenhower Medal when in fact he did not win the prestigious Dwight Eisenhower Medal to me constitutes borderline fraud. It's akin to the doctor in the Schiavo case claiming on his resume to be "Nobel-nominated" to try to hitch on the prestige of the Nobel when in fact the phrase "Nobel-nominated" is complete bunk (nominations are never disclosed and can be submitted by anyone)--Mmx1 16:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not sourced, and many of these claims are not WP:V because they cannot be independently verified (the sources I could find are highly suspect). Unless someone can source these claims, Bowman fails WP:BIO.--Isotope23 18:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Improve Verifiability or Delete. The claim that Bowman was the Director of the Star Wars initiative is almost certainly true. However, there needs to be a citation from a verifiable source. The other claims made in the article are of dubious origin and importance. Add content. This article needs more biographical information. It is currently a stub. Cdcon 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article's citations and content have been drastically improved since my first review.  Cdcon  15:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Exactly WHAT claim is not sourced? It says that the biograpy makes that statment, and there is a link provided to the biography. I expect the admin to diregard votes with false statments. --Striver 19:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment, when I said "Not Sourced" this was the version of the page I was seeing: [7]. You added the link after my comment. Please try and assume WP:FAITH before you make accusations. The other issue I have is that when I went out and independently tried to source and verify the claims in this article, I found his autobiographical site. He makes a bunch of claims there, but as Mmx1 and Cdcon have pointed out, these claims cannot be independently verified. As for running for congress, he has declared himself a candidate and anyone can do that. He doesn't even have the requisite signatures to be a primary candidate at this time. Until that has happened, IMO he is not a serious candidate. It's the equivelent of me going onto my blog and declaring that I'm running for Congress at this point.--Isotope23 20:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for that, i lost my temper. Even in the link you provided, the autobiography is there, in the external links section. peace. --Striver 21:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem... I didn't see it in the external links when I first looked at it.--Isotope23 00:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
From his campaign website [8], where the claims are toned down, Col. Bowman was Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the Air Force Space Division." This may or may not have included the forerunner to SDI, but the term "Star Wars" was not even coined until the mid-80's. There was no significant work on SDI until Reagan was informed of the theory in 1983, five years after Col. Bowman retired. --Mmx1 19:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There you go, a second source that proves his notability. I am starting to get a bit cranky about seeing a whole army of people yeling "no notable" as soon as they step out of the box and question say USA did it. How is that NOT censorship?

THE SINGLE FACT THAT HE IS RUNNING FOR CONGRESS AND SAYD USA DID IT MAKES HIM NOTABLE. --Striver 19:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. You have mentioned two sources. Let me go over them with you:
  • Autobiography. It is a posting from the United Catholic Church. It has roughly the same worth as the biography of the CEO of a company posted on a company's website, which is approximately zero.
  • Biography. It is a posting by Bowman for Congress. The same rationale as above can be applied here, rendering the value to this source as approximately zero.
Your two sources are very poor. Please find better ones.  Cdcon  19:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

They're ALL autobiographical. Every bio of COL Bowman online is sourced from his autobiographical page(s). Note in WP:V the section "Self-published sources". If I put up a page saying that I'm the Queen of England does that make it a source? My god, do you know how many Tom, Dick, and Harrys run for Congress in the US? ~500/2 year term * average 2 candidates per term. Five hundred candidates a year. That's not by any means notable. --Mmx1 19:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for loosing temper, i do that sometimes... sorry. --Striver 19:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Same here. We can all get emotional and defensive about our strongly-held beliefs. --Mmx1 20:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep needs to be expanded though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazyeights (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 February 2006.
  • delete Jcuk 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not known for anything but his involvement in the 9/11 group. Rhobite 01:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Striver has a point. When people say that somebody is not notable, sometimes I think they mean "not notable to me." I have seen articles on this list who are notable in fundamentalist Christian circles, which apparently some people think disqualifies them for notability. I have seen musicians listed because they are "not notable," even though they may be the principal player in a well-known orchestra and have several recordings. Because they are not pop singers, they are "not notable" to some people. Let's be careful. On the other hand, I would like to see the information verified. If it isn't, then the article should be highly revised or scrapped. Logophile 11:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Though I nom'd the delete I have made a good faith effort to lookup and verify all claims made by the subject and have found no references that aren't autobiographical. Neither, so far, has the author. --Mmx1 23:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Keep per striver. Kappa 14:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. He may be worth a small article as a congressional candidate (and a bigger one if he actually gets the Democratic nomination), but as it stands it's a PR POV entry. --Aaron 17:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep: Clearly notable; reason for AfD is clearly to remove an article that does not conform with nominator's pov. Awards underscore recognition of notability by significant stakeholders. Ombudsman 21:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:AGF. Maybe you would like to reword your comments? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
No. Good faith is not the issue here, as placing an article on AfD is by it's very definition a statement of pov, to which the nominator is entitled. Mentioning the obvious motivation behind the AfD has little or nothing to do with whether or not the nominator is acting in good faith, as everyone is entitled to their own pov on what falls within the bounds of good faith. You seem to have a narrower definition of good faith than what the phrase means outside the Wiki. Ombudsman 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, perfect example of POV pushing. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Noteworthy individual. SkeenaR 22:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN and POV --rogerd 03:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but needs work. I added two books he authored (possibly the second is a revision of the first, but I don't know). I can't determine if he is the same Robert M. Bowman as this one http://www.biblicalapologetics.net/About_Rob_Bowman.htm who has written about the Star Wars movies [9]; some of the SDI Star Wars books on abebooks.com do give his name as Bowman Jr., but that could be in error. Perhaps he's the father of the apologetics one. Schizombie 03:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Actually, taking another look at the apologetics page above, RMBjr indicates he has a son named Robbie, and RMB's family photos page indicates he has a grandson named Robbie [10]. For what it's worth. Also, some books citing RMB:
      • Reagan's America by Lloyd deMause (1984) ISBN 0940508028 quotes RMB: "Carter's space weapons chief, Col. Robert M. Bowman, called it 'the ultimate military lunacy, easily overwhelmed and vulnerable,' which would give the nuclear holocaust 'a hair-trigger of milliseconds.'"[11] citing "Bowman's appearance on 'The MacNeill-Lehrer News Hour,' WNET-TV, November 10, 1983. Also see his statements in 'Star Wars-Pie in the Sky,' New York Times, December 14, 1983, p. A35."[12]
      • Space Policy: An Introduction by Nathan C. Goldman (1992) ISBN 0813810248 citing RMB's "Arms Control in Space: Preserving Critical Strategic Space Systems without Weapons in Space" in America's Plans for Space (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1984).
      • Masters of War: Militarism and Blowback in the Era of American Empire by Carl Boggs (2003) ISBN 0415944996 citing RMB's "Wounding National Security, Star Wars II Endangers the American people." The News Insider, July 23, 2001.
      • Censored 2001: The Year's Top 25 Censored Stories, by Peter Phillips & Project Censored (2001) ISBN 158322064X citing RMB's "Our Continuing War Against Iraq," Space and Security News May 1998.
      • Smashmouth: Two Years in the Gutter with Al Gore and George W. Bush by Dana Milbank (2001) ISBN 0465045901 quotes RMB.
      • The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (2005) ISBN 1566565960 blurbs RMB.
    • He's also quoted in:
      • "Air Force Reports First Firing of Space Weapon" by Jeff Gerth, New York Times January 22, 1984
      • "Shuttle Repair Capacity Called Militarily Useful" by Wayne Biddle, New York Times April 19, 1984
      • "Split Over Buchanan Splinters Reform Party Convention" by Mike Allen, New York Times September 26, 1999


[edit] restart

Ok, ill start again. Basicly, he is among the people holding my view of 9/11 that has the highest social status. Sure, anyone can run for congress, but not many that hold my view of 9/11 do. Also, he is a member of S9/11T. So, by deleting this guy, you are in fact shrinking some of "cabal" that hold my view of 9/11, and right now, they arent all over the place. So, based on this, i argue he is notable.


I mean, how many other people with like him do you find that hold that view?

He might not be notable in the big world, but he is notable among people that hold my view of 9/11. Comments? --Striver 21:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: As you admit, you have very specific and uncommon views of 9/11. Also you admit having a personal stake in this: deleting his article shrinks the group agreeing with your views. Wikipedia says this about letting personal views influence articles: Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Wikipedia says this about letting a personal stake affect articles or references to articles: "Creating...references to autobiographical articles...in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable." Joema 23:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You see, i view my self as a representative of the people sharing my view, at least here in WP. I belive the policy you are mentioning is about not using Wikipedia to gain personaly from it, for example, selling a product one has created, or further some theory i have inveted.

But that is not the case. I do not try to sell anyting, or make comercial for anyting, or further any theory i have invented, neither partialy nor completly.

My personal interest is comparable to the personal interest a Mormon has in trying to keep a prominent mormon from bein excluded from wikipedia. The only argument he can offer is that the person in question is a prominen mormon.

And that is my arguement. Robert M. Bowman is a prominent "Mormon", if you get my point.

Please dont delete my "Mormon". --Striver 01:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that we are comparing to mormons, look at this list of mormons: List of Latter-day Saints. Many of them are far less notable to mormons, than this guy is to those holding my view. --Striver 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I mean, i found this guy in the list: Itula Mili. He is nothing to mormons, compared to what Robert M. Bowman is to those of my view. Still, nobody is suggesting to delete his article. And this is not a anomaly, the rule is that people corresponding to minorities are compared to others in their own group, not to everyone else.

And Robert M. Bowman is very notable AMONG the people holding my view. --Striver 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


An one last thing about soapboxes. I dont care to convince you about my view, i have hardly mentioned what my view is. I want it represented, i dont care for anyone acctualy beliving in it or not, not in Wikipedia anyway. So in no way am i trying to soapbox. --Striver 01:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete user has been trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to spread '9/11 truth'. Look at his page history [13]--Jersey Devil 08:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, i am trying to have me view represented on Wikipedia. And you call me a soapboxer for that? I take great offense in that. Would the opposite be soaboxing for the Bin Laden theory? Allegations as this makes my angry, i see this as clear evidence of people not even recoqnizing my basic rights to have my views represted, exemplified in deleting prominent people holding them. --Striver 10:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Yes, that is using a soapbox. NPOV--Jersey Devil 12:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am not soapboxing

You are misstaken. Read WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. A soapbox is:

ONE:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. [14]

I do not break NPOV when editing. That means i am not soapboxing, what i am doing is "report objectively about such things". I am reporting objectivly about the "Bush did it" view, i am not propageting or advocating it.

TWO:

Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability. [15]

I am not personaly involved in any of the events that i do articles about, and i am most certanly not personly involved in Robert M. Bowman.

THREE:

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability. [16]

I do not make articles about companies or products. --Striver 13:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


You owe me an apology for wrongly accusing me of soapboxing --Striver 13:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


You've admitted several times you have very specific and uncommon opinions of 9/11, and you want to express these in Wikipedia. According to Webster's dictionary, a soapbox is "something that provides an outlet for delivering opinions" [17]. By your own admission what you're doing is soapboxing. Joema 14:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No sir, i do not "want to express these", i want to REPORT these. Who cares about Webster when im qouting WP:NOT? Further, i do not "delivering opinions" i REPORT opinions, a great difference! --Striver 14:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You've already admitted your goal is expressing your uncommon personal views on 9/11: "not many that hold my view of 9/11...I want it represented"..."i am trying to have me view represented on Wikipedia" Using someone else as your mouthpiece doesn't change this fact. Joema 14:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying i am soapboxing when i add articles to Wikipedia, since i want them represeted? --Striver 15:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Soapboxing is "something that provides an outlet for delivering opinions" (Webster). You've said you want your opinions represented on Wikipedia via this article. IOW, you're using this article as a vehicle to express your views. So yes, I'd say that's soapboxing. Joema 15:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So, my question is: Why are you using Webster to define a Wikipedia term? Why dont you use WP:NOT? --Striver 15:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Because when there's a question over the meaning of a word, the standard practice is go to the dictionary. "Soapbox" is not a Wikipedia term. It's an English term that's used in many places, including Wikipedia. Joema 15:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You know what? In that case, you are soapboxing. You are using wikipedia to delivering your opinions regarding me, and hence, you are a soapboxer. How about that? --Striver 16:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not stating my opinion -- I'm just repeating what you yourself have admitted about your goals. Joema 16:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure you are, it is not my oppinion that im soapboxing, so it must be your, considering this is a dialog. You see how ridiculous this is getting? Acctualy, you are a bigger soapboxer than me, by your own standards, since i didnt add my oppinion when i was creating articles.

Essentialy, what you are saying, is that one shuold not be allowed to creat articles if the articles is about something one belives in. --Striver 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not stating my opinion -- just repeating what you yourself have said. You said you have uncommon opinions about 9/11 and want to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to express these. Joema 17:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it mine or your oppinion that i am soapboxing? --Striver 17:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the above postings, it appears to be several people's opinion you are soapboxing. Joema 18:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Which conflicts with the Wiki contention that Carol Rosin originated the term "Star Wars". I'll pull his 1985 book from the library and see what it says. Would like an SDI expert to weigh in on who was more prominent at the time, Bowman or Rosin and where the term originated. Maybe I'm cynical, but since when did news stories plug the subject's website? Mr. Bowman has pushed a lot of propaganda about his involvement in the SDI, but he was apparently never worth a mention on the SDI nor does his ISS appear to be any more than a one-man press release machine.--Mmx1 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      • When was Rosin supposed to have originated it? Whoever did it, I'm sure it happened early on, it's a fairly obvious nickname. Schizombie 20:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
        • 1983, I believe, according to the SDI article; it is unfortunately not very good. Have posted on Talk:Strategic Defense Initiative asking for feedback. Have lexis-nexised him and found 1 NYT and 1 CSR editorial; the other articles quote him as a consultant and aren't very useful for notability. --Mmx1 20:11, 27 February 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Robert_M._Bowman_2aa5.html"