Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bow

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. Sr13 03:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Bow

James Bow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - Non-notable Paul Cyr 03:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - fails WP:BIO and makes no claim of notability. No WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 04:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per Evb-wiki. His website may be notable, but he isn't. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, lack of reliable sources proving notability. Jacek Kendysz 14:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. As per CSD:A7.--Edtropolis 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I almost speedied it, but I think that the assertion of a published book is an assertion of notability... but, The Unwritten Girl should be deleted too if the author is and is the publisher, Dundurn Group, notable at all? gren グレン 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Cmt - It appears that [[:3]:User:Dundurn|Dundurn]] ([[:3]:User talk:Dundurn|talk]] · [[:3]:Special:Contributions/Dundurn|contribs]]) created all three of these articles (and others) as a WP:SPAM-only account. --Evb-wiki 18:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I recognize Dundurn as a single purpose account, but note that it has not been used in nearly a year. Assuming good faith, I think the user may have realized that such contributions run counter to Wki policy. Concerning the Dundurn Group itself - though small, it has published some fairly significant titles by internationally recognized scholars and authors. Although a clean-up and update is required, there's no question in my mind that the Dundurn article should stay. Victoriagirl 03:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 18:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment not that I want to play spoiler here, but the book did receive limited third-party coverage. I also think that some notability is asserted so I don't think this is a candidate for speedy deletion. Pascal.Tesson 00:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and the book should be separately proposed, but I'd support the article for the Group, as the most comprehensive. DGG 03:33, 15 June 2007 (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.