Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Bowlen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. John254 15:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kathy Bowlen

Kathy Bowlen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod, nothing to suggest this woman is particularly notable, she's just doing her job. Delete --Peta 23:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep In my opinion, "just doing one's job" is not a great reason for deletion – almost all biographical articles on Wikipedia are about people just doing their jobs – TV presenters, politicians, writers, musicians, pretty much everyone. In Kathy Bowlen's case, her job means she is seen, heard and recognised by hundreds of thousands of Victorians, and I'd been hard-pressed to consider that non-notable. --Canley 01:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Does high visibility equate to high notability? Andjam 02:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, this is the second time that you Peta, that you've wanted to change something that I've put on. I am aware that I saw a 26 year old woman from Canberra, studying university some time on TV commenting with your username to a news reporter a few months ago. Not notable too I guess. You're welcome to remove anything that I've placed on Wikipedia, if that's what you like, though I've been placing such material for the general public with no such bias (hopefully on my side).

Here's why I uploaded the material: someone put a link to this person, which I decided readily to follow-up on more information on the person. Here's why I put it on: The presenter is not a celebrity, agreed. But were someone interested in seeing a presenter and how he or she looks, I feel this would be an ideal place for someone this as general information. There are other presenters on the ABC news site too. If you feel that the presenter's privacy has been violated, well I'll be happy for the article to be deleted. Though I think trival information such as this should be available, deleting it would get close to being tyranical, Orwellian you might say.

End of commentary on my side then. Try0yrt 08:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep In my view "just doing her job" makes her notable, given the job she does. All kinds of notable people from George W Bush down are notable only because of their job. I would say a newreader for the ABC at state level is definitely notable. It would also be a very sad day if one had to be a celebrity to be considered notable for our purposes

Jules1975 11:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep, as far as newsreaders go, she's pretty run-of-the-mill, but the mere fact that she's in that occupation probably makes her notable. Just. Lankiveil 08:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep In the public eye enough (in Victoria where she is on Stateline however often) that she is notable. Garrie 03:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the independent coverage (alumni profile and The Age article in "External links") which passes WP:BIO (just, but still passes). High-visibility is a plus. -- Black Falcon 09:30, 10 March 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.