Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Ralph Bowen

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 userfy to User:Pbsolomon/Norman Ralph Bowen per request. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Ralph Bowen

Norman Ralph Bowen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article fails WP:BIO (no notable award or wide contribution; does not meet creative professional criteria), WP:RS (cites an unpublished family history, an obituary with no author indicated, and a book he edited), and likely WP:COI per Close relationships since the principal editor of the article has not really edited any pages other than this one (sorry if false accusation, but just presenting the evidence). Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries. City editor does not seem to be notable and mission president is not notable enough alone for Wikipedia entry. No other articles link to this one. Eustress (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I feel this is a valid and well-researched article about a noted journalist, LDS church leader and nationally published author. Those who dispute the references and citations have not listed any specific facts or claims that they feel to be unsupported or untrue. As for WP:BIO and WP:NOT, the subject is a well-known journalist and author who was the city editor of a major metropolitan newspaper (the SLC Deseret News), and an important LDS church leader. As for WP:COI there is absolutely no conflict of interest and this is, as Eustress suggests, a false accusation. I feel that prejudice more of a part in this than does the reliability of my information. Pbsolomon (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this is an abviously notable journalist, and editor of an important newspaper. The article needs footnotes, I suggest that the author look at other articles and learn how wikipedia articles are constructed.Becca02459 (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Becca02459
    • Reply: Yes, thank you, I will add footnotes ASAP. Pbsolomon (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BIO the burden falls on the editor to show through verifiable resources the notability of the subject. The only info I found on him was this [1]. I would love to reconcider with some additional sources. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No attribution of notability to independent sources. I don't think city editors are inherently notable, and thus notability must be established by third party coverage. The article, as it is, spends more time on his family than on his professional career -- and that's just in the one paragraph devoted to it. --Dhartung | Talk 19:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply: Wikipedia gives the following guideline on notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." I realize that there is a need to include other reliable sources that establish his notability, but I think there should at least be a grace period given in which I can provide those sources. Pbsolomon (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment You created this article last year. Exactly how much time do you want? An AFD normally lasts five days. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Reply: Yes, I created it last year, and just now its being listed for deletion. I didn't know he wasn't adequately supported as being "notable." So, if it's deleted I will request it to be undeleted and continue to do so until it is considered worthy of Wikipedia. Pbsolomon (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Comment. I don't deny that I am new to Wikipedia. I am learning as I go, but I don't think the mistakes I have made should be grounds for deleting this article. From what I have read here, the main concern with this article seems to be a lack of "verifiable sources." Wikipedia gives the following guidelines for providing references:

  • "Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, which are mandated by the featured article criteria and (to a lesser extent) the good article criteria. Inline citations are references within the text that provide source information for specific statements. They are appropriate for supporting statements of fact and are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations."

I have provided general references that support the information in the article. As far as I can tell, there is nothing contentious or likely to be challenged in the information I have provided. If there are specific concerns about facts or wording I will gladly address those concerns. I will also provide footnotes and additonal references if needed. What I don't appreciate is experienced editors trying to bully newbies or dismissing our efforts to contribute to Wikipedia. I was never even given a chance to make changes to the article before it was listed for deletion. Pbsolomon (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment It is not just that you need to use reliable sources or inline citations. Those are matters of style. But material that is not adequately supported by sources is not notable and subject to deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Re:Notability I have added references for a book and WSJ article Bowen authored. I also noticed that the Lowell Thomas entry (nobody can deny that HE is notable) referenced Bowen's biography of him, and there was a dead link to Bowen's entry (please note that I did not add this reference, I only completed the link to Bowen's page.) In accordance with Wikipedia standards I have also added footnote-style references to the entry. How can a published author, major newspaper editor, and friend/biographer of the famous newsman Lowell Thomas not be considered notable enough for Wikipedia? Pbsolomon (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
So if I were friends with Anderson Cooper (a famous newsman), should I merit my own article? I think the logic of your argument is flawed. Also, you are stretching the truth, as Bowen was not Lowell's "biographer"—he only edited Lowell's autobiography. --Eustress (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: Bowen's association with Thomas is not the sole criteria for his notable status, as you seem to assume. Wikipedia states that for biographical entries, a person may be considered notable if "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Bowen made such a contribution to his specific field (journalism) and his relationship with Thomas is simply supporting evidence of this contribution, which I am forced to compile due to the article being listed for deletion. If the article is deleted, I will make a request for it to be undeleted and a request for dispute mediation. For now, I will continue to compile sources that portray Bowen as a notable person. Thanks to all for your input & help. Also, I now have a better understanding of the weaknesses of this article, and I apologize if I did not assume good faith on the part of the editor who listed it for deletion. It just seemed strange that the article would be listed for deletion after it had been around for so long. Pbsolomon (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Update: Revisions are continuing. Per advice from Doug, I'd like to say that I didn't intend my intentions to request undeletion, mediation, etc. to sound like threats, I was just unfamiliar with the deletion process and misunderstood the nature of those processes. Pbsolomon (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. This gentleman was nothing more than an average journeyman journalist, and we delete them from WP every single day. There are hundreds of thousands of them, and they are not notable writers by WP:BIO, WP:BK, or anything else. The other point being pushed is that he was a Mormon, but there's nothing inherently notable about that either. Qworty (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply: I'd like to point out that there are several complaints on User:Qworty's discussion page about him making anti-Mormon edits, which may play a part in his input. Pbsolomon (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO, specifically for BIO:Creative professionals (journalists). Barkeep Chat | $ 13:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If this article is deleted, please undelete it to my userspace. Thanks. Pbsolomon (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You can copy text to your userspace anytime; however, I'm doubtful that another (third) creation of the article could do much more to try to establish Bowen's notability. --Eustress (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Third creation? The article has only been created once so far. You're right, Bowen may not meet notability standards for Wikipedia, but I'd like to see what else I can come up with. Pbsolomon (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, sorry...second creation. But you can just copy the text over to a userpage if you want. You might consider setting up a personal sandbox. --Eustress (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This article is also part of the LDS WikiProject. See [[2]]Pbsolomon (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Consensus? Well, obviously I (and maybe one other editor) don't agree that this article should be deleted, but the majority opinion seems to favor deleting it. I have copied the article to my user page and plan to continue research and recreate the article if the article is deleted and if I feel like I can prove that Bowen satisfies WP:BIO. Pbsolomon (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't see anything that satisfies WP:BIO. A nice article for a genealogy site but it doesn't belong here. Dimitrii (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2008 (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.