Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles (fourth nomination)
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. Krimpet (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tim Bowles
The most recent AfD on this fellow closed as "no consensus." DRV overturned (very narrowly) on the rationale that BLP concerns were not sufficiently discussed. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The assertion that he is notable because he has worked with or has been involved with other notable people is nonsense. Notability isn't communicable like that, it needs to be established on its own merits. What is the primary criterion for notability? "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Mr. Bowles is not the subject of the reliable secondary sources given. In those sources, he is, at best, a trivial mention. Arkyan • (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per above comment. He's not notable as an attorney; no significant bar association activity, no other clients, as far as I can tell. Bearian 18:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge or delete. The independent references look to be trivial with respect to their treatment of him specifically. Seems like there's a decent argument for notability the of Bowles and Moxon firm, but I don't see anything that establishes him as notable aside from that. If his name really wound up getting out there in these Scientology cases, then I guess I wouldn't have a problem with the encyclopedia being able to respond to his name being entered here. But from what I can see, even if that's allowed, it would be better for the page resulting from entering Bowles's name to be that of the law firm, rather than be a bio of someone who doesn't seem to really meet WP:BIO — at least not judging by what I see cited in the article (again, because what is cited in the article is trivial with respect to Bowles individually). Mwelch 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep He is one of the chief legal goons for Scientology. He is written about, not always favorably. Currently he is a commissioner on Scientology's Citizens Commission on Human Rights and director of Scientology's Youth for Human Rights International. He is not to be confused with Tim Bowles, former chief executive of MRB Group, the London-based parent of Simmons Market Research Bureau. --Bejnar 22:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - per Bejnar. Notability for the subject is established in the article. Please also note the article has been significally expanded since first being listed for AfD on April 13; see DIFF [1] to address allegations of WP:BIO raised in the third AfD discussion, but not in the nomination statement itself. The fact the article was able to be expanded shows it was not a "hopeless case". Please also note this fourth AfD was started without the article itself being tagged as having a fourth AfD. I will now tag the article accordingly. Orsini 01:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep , I think saying that there is N for the firm and not him is hair-splitting when he's one of the two principals. I see no BLP concerns with respect to the subject--he is an attorney doing his work in the public arena on a topic of general public interest. I wonder if the deletion will be attempted every week or so until it eventually succeeds by chance. . DGG 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'd respectfully (and particularly respectfully in this case, since DGG is an editor for whom I certainly have respect) disagree. There is a law firm called Ziffren, Brittenham, Branca, Fischer, Gilbert-Lurie, Stiffelman, Cook, Johnson, Lande & Wolf. If that firm takes on high-profile work that makes the firm notable (it may already be; I haven't looked into it in any detail, but I think it's considered fairly heavyweight in entertainment law; heck, some might even argue it's notable just for the name!--lol), does that mean all ten of them now automatically satisfy WP:BIO just from that alone? Without any independent coverage of them individually or their individual work on whatever case(s) made the firm notable? I can't see that. Mwelch 00:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, per User:DGG's excellent points. There have been (3) previous unsuccessful AFDs. And since then, even more citations have been added to the article from reputable secondary sources, and more will continue to be added. Smee 07:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
- Weak delete tinged with apathy. It's simple: does this guy meet WP:BIO? The guideline tells us to consider "the depth of coverage" - and the additional sources seem to mention Bowles in a line or two, at most. I still don't see that he's been the subject of non-trivial coverage in "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." He is not automatically notable just because his firm is - see WP:NOTINHERITED. The prior AfD's have not generated a consensus (they've all been closed as "no consensus", not "keep"), so relisting is not as inappropriate as some of the above comments suggest. MastCell Talk 15:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep notable scientology attorney, formerly law partner of Kendrick Moxon. [2] [3] [4]. The two separated in the 90ies. Still lawyer for scientology causes today. He (or someone with his name) has confirmed this himself in discussion. Note also that the article has been improved a few days ago by Smee, so that there is even more documentation. --Tilman 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Let me add that the article has been greatly improved in the last few days, there are more useful details. Also, at least 6 other articles link to him, i.e. it is not an orphan. --Tilman 06:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep definitely a notable person and a historical figure. I wonder why there have been four AfD's on this fellow.--Fahrenheit451 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Partly because of continual assertions that he's "definitely notable", without pointing to any non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, or explaining how exactly he fulfills the criteria set forth in WP:BIO. Arguments making use of Wikipedia's notability guidelines would probably help settle the issue. Counting the number of prior no-consensus AfD's or arguing that "he works for a notable organization, therefore he is notable" are less helpful. MastCell Talk 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I believe there have been cases before of musicians where it was determined "Yeah, they were a member of this notable band, but it was the band that was notable, not each individual members." Then there have been cases of individual musicians who, while not achieving fame in their own right, were members of multiple bands that were each notable, and I believe that in those cases, the general verdict was that notability had been achieved. If Bowles was only a name partner in Scientology's lead counsel for their effort to attain tax-exempt status, or only a name partner in the law firm generally credited with bankrupting the original Cult Awareness Network, or only a Commissioner of Citizens Commission on Human Rights, or only a director of Youth for Human Rights International, then yes, I would agree, there'd be not much of an argument for notability. But I believe that there is precedent for deeming someone notable who has been involved in all these notable organizations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Partly because of continual assertions that he's "definitely notable", without pointing to any non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, or explaining how exactly he fulfills the criteria set forth in WP:BIO. Arguments making use of Wikipedia's notability guidelines would probably help settle the issue. Counting the number of prior no-consensus AfD's or arguing that "he works for a notable organization, therefore he is notable" are less helpful. MastCell Talk 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice - It is important to note that a number but not all Keep votes in all his AfDs are bloc voting by anti-Scientologists that seem to be invoking the "but he is a Scientologist" hidden clause of WP:BIO. This clause states that depth of coverage need not be considered if the subject of a WP:BLP is a Scientologist. Obviously I am being sardonic and I am not going to go into my suppositions as to why anti-Scientologists vote this way. You can spot the bloc by looking at common voters in previous AfDs. And yes, Scientologists vote in a bloc too and I am sure that anti-Scientologists can come up with a mirror-image sardonic "reason". I do not know if this is the "partisan shenanigans" referred to by the closing admin in the 3rd AfD. I am nom for the 3rd AfD and still believe that his prior work as an attorney does not meet notability for this project. However, as Director of Youth for Human Rights, it is possible that he will at some point in the possibly near future be the subject of sufficient non-trivial coverage and an article can be created for him at that time. --Justanother 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG, and frankly, I would suggest to Justanother that he stop claiming that he has some mysterious power by which he can magically divine the innermost thoughts of "anti-Scientologists". As his recent allegations about my religion indicate, he is not a good guesser about such matters. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hi. Antaeus, if I misremembered something about you re your religious beliefs or lack thereof then I apologize. I think I said that it was what I seemed to remember from a past post. As far as the persistent intentions of anti-Scientologists to fill this project with articles about Scientology and Scientologists, notable or not, to, IMO, serve as vehicles for a sustained campaign of unbalanced POV-pushing and pointing to highly POV and non-RS external links; well, I think that speaks for itself. How many Scientology-series articles are there? Like 250? And how hard do I have to fight to get the articles to stick to RS and to get the crap EL's out? Not against you particularly or against some others that seem to have a decent sense of where "consensus" might lie but certainly against the continued reverts of a few of your friends that misjudge it or just don't care and ignore it as it is building. Oh well. --Justanother 16:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- There are now 272 Scientology series articles. Steve Dufour 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Justanother, you come across as hypocritical to me. To quote from your user page:"Oh, I should mention that I most certainly do not the divide the universe into pro- and anti-Scientologist; I do not even divide the editors working on the Scientology articles here that way;" You seem to be doing quite a job of lumping those with a different POV on Scn than you into the "anti" category. --Fahrenheit451 17:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, while I, like most, am not immune to hypocrisy I do not think that you that have put your finger on any. 272 Scientology-series articles, huh? And a certain group will always vote as one to keep the most non-notable of them and to keep the most outrageous POV ELs in as "highly relevant and sourced" or some-such. The exceptions, those that do not blindly vote the "party line", usually simply abstain; they almost never vote against their bloc. All very partisan. The pro- and anti-Scientology editors are obvious. My point on my user page is that not all editors that edit in the Scientology-series articles fall into partisan camps. So I do not see the hypocrisy. --Justanother 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Justanother, I know it will do no good whatsoever to ask you to stop your personal attacks but I will ask you anyways. I know you will defend your continuing allegations with some combination of "but I haven't actually named any names" and "but it's all true" (as if anyone ever believed their own beliefs false?) I do not think these are adequate excuses. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure a personal attack does, by definition, have to attack a person. wikipediatrix 04:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- And that's exactly what Justanother's personal attacks do, they attack people. If I point my finger at a group of twenty people and say "you people are dishonest, sneaking, snivelling rats with no integrity," I have made a personal attack. Does the fact that I simply pointed at that group to identify who I was attacking, instead of naming specific names, make it less of a personal attack? No, it does not. Does the fact that each one of those twenty people might think that I only meant eighteen or nineteen of them, and think him or herself the exception, in any way mean that I have not made a personal attack upon whichever eighteen or nineteen I did mean? No. It's still personal attacks and it's still just as disruptive and frankly just as noxious. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I dunno. I read the same thing you did and I wasn't offended. I didn't think he was disruptive. I didn't think he was noxious. But that's just my opinion of your opinion of his opinion. wikipediatrix 05:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- And that's exactly what Justanother's personal attacks do, they attack people. If I point my finger at a group of twenty people and say "you people are dishonest, sneaking, snivelling rats with no integrity," I have made a personal attack. Does the fact that I simply pointed at that group to identify who I was attacking, instead of naming specific names, make it less of a personal attack? No, it does not. Does the fact that each one of those twenty people might think that I only meant eighteen or nineteen of them, and think him or herself the exception, in any way mean that I have not made a personal attack upon whichever eighteen or nineteen I did mean? No. It's still personal attacks and it's still just as disruptive and frankly just as noxious. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure a personal attack does, by definition, have to attack a person. wikipediatrix 04:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Being a lawyer for a famous cause isn't sufficient in and of itself. Where is he written about, please? All the sources, both in this article and in this AFD, just give his name and profession. That's not sufficient for an article. Tilman's references are an excellent example, they don't mention him as an actual person anywhere, just say that he is part of his law firm. In fact, so does our article - it doesn't say what he did that was at all notable; not his company, or his religious group, he. So he was a lawyer for scientology causes, that's not sufficient in itself unless someone wrote about him being such a lawyer. Real writing, not just mentioning his name. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per what I said the last time. Mr Bowles activities are notable and seperate from Moxon & Kobrin. As well I have just added a list clients to the article. AndroidCat 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Not notable. He is a lawyer doing a lawyer's work. That as notable as a driver driving and a gardener gardening. COFS 23:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Extremely Weak Keep. The article's introductory paragraph describes Bowles as "an American attorney who has worked for the Church of Scientology and its related organizations for the majority of his career." Substitute any other entity's name for Scientology and it suddenly seems like a "who cares?" kind of thing. What if he worked as an attorney for the Lutheran church all his life? Or Westinghouse or General Electric? Of all of the "important" cases Bowles worked on involving Scientology, none of them were as big as the O. J. Simpson trial... and yet many of the O.J. trial attorneys to this day do not have their own article. It should be noted that I am the creator of this article, and that I now regret creating it because in retrospect, I just don't think Bowles is notable enough in the big scheme of things to deserve an article. This is not because I wish to remove information that may be unflattering to Bowles and Scientology, quite the contrary: all of the data in this article has a rightful place in other Wikipedia articles. Having said all that, I vote 'weak keep' because the article is a really good read now that AndroidCat has done a superb job of beefing up the info, and part of me wants to keep it that way despite feeling in principle that it nevertheless fails Wikipedia's criteria of notability. I realize this is illogical, arbitrary, and self-contradictory, but hey, so is Wikipedia in general. wikipediatrix 01:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Bejnar, DGG, and AndroidCat. The combination of his legal work over the years and, increasingly, his profile as an international human rights advocate (and the attention paid thereto) appear to confer notability. Robertissimo 08:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep per wikipediatrix. Metamagician3000 23:46, 29 April 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.
