Talk:Dane Bowers

Untitled
Should his involvement in the MMA organisation 'Knuckle Up' be mentioned as I believe he owns it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.98.218 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Another Level
A previous edit by Gungadin seemed to me to overstate how influential Another Level were. They seemed to me run-of-the-mill boyband of only temporary prominence. What I think, though, doesn't really matter - but unsupported assertions do. Can anyone back these statements up? PeteinBrum 23:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLP
I removed information about a sex tape and drink driving because they were unreferenced. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. Please find sources if you want to re-add these. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth
This article says 28 November, Another Level (band) says 29 November. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple reverts of abortion details
The Sun reference in the article states "After falling pregnant with Bower's baby she had an abortion, fearing he was cheating on her." This information has been removed on the grounds of being unencyclopaedic, however it does not appear to be a breach of WP:BLP (being published in a national newspaper) and appears relevant to the nature of her relationship rather than completely tangential to the article. Being "unencyclopaedic" seems a weak justification for multiple reverts, is there an stronger rationale to keep this information out of the article? Ash (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bowers impregnated Price; she aborted the foetus. .... I don't think it is very encyclopedic and of much value to the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So is the objection to the language used rather than the fact itself, i.e. with suitable wording your would consider in "encyclopaedic"? I would suggest "She fell pregnant with Bower's baby but had an abortion" seems factual and supported by the RS. Ash (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that is better but to me it still is excessively personal information that has no added encyclopedic value to the reader as far as RS goes if you can find it in a broadsheet I will accept it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a rather non-WP policy criteria for selecting reliable sources, particularly as so few newspapers retain the broadsheet format. It appears that you are claiming special ownership of this article and so are unilaterally setting the local editing rules; perhaps you did not intent it to sound like that? Here are two more reliable sources carrying the same story about Bower's baby, with 3 published sources from different journalists this seems highly reliably sourced. If you still want to keep reverting this material due to being excessively personal (though with it plastered across so many newspapers, I think the term "personal" barely applies), perhaps WP:RSN or a RFC is in order?
 * Ash (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the term Encyclopedia apply, ..secret abortion heartache says it all to me. Do you think it would be in the Encyclopedia Britannica? His girlfriend had an abortion..Why do you think it is valuable content? Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It illuminates the character of the subject of this BLP, particularly with regard to an 18-month relationship with Jordan. The material may be perceived as negative but cannot be considered harmful as it has been published nationally in multiple sources over many years quoting direct personal testimony and has never been challenged as being non-factual. I feel the case has been clearly stated, whereas the case against comes down to a question of value judgement of what "encyclopaedic" means. I will not argue further but will put it to consensus if you still wish to act as a de facto guardian of this article. Your argument about Encyc. Brit. is transparently spurious as endless articles about characters from Star Trek would not make it there either. Ash (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no legitimate justification for removing this relevant, sourced biographical info. The pregnancy and abortion were major life events for both Bowers and Price. Imagine being in that situation - are you claiming it wouldn't bother you in the slightest if you impregnated someone, and that you also wouldn't be bothered if she aborted the foetus? For a famous person, it is even more relevant, due to the media coverage. This article doesn't give a 'he said, she said' account of it. There is only a seven word sentence; it is not disproportional. Foetus is better than baby. Foetus is neutral and correct. Calling a foetus a baby is both incorrect and POV, as it is saying that a foetus is a person, when it is actually part of its host. It also gives a strongly anti-abortion tone. We should present the info correctly and neutrally, which those seven words do. Saying the info has to be in a broadsheet is ridiculous, newspapers such as The Telegraph are highly unlikely to run any story about Bowers, whereas the Sun have done so many times. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It illuminates the character of the subject of this BLP, particularly with regard to an 18-month relationship with Jordan. The material may be perceived as negative but cannot be considered harmful as it has been published nationally in multiple sources over many years quoting direct personal testimony and has never been challenged as being non-factual. I feel the case has been clearly stated, whereas the case against comes down to a question of value judgement of what "encyclopaedic" means. I will not argue further but will put it to consensus if you still wish to act as a de facto guardian of this article. Your argument about Encyc. Brit. is transparently spurious as endless articles about characters from Star Trek would not make it there either. Ash (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no legitimate justification for removing this relevant, sourced biographical info. The pregnancy and abortion were major life events for both Bowers and Price. Imagine being in that situation - are you claiming it wouldn't bother you in the slightest if you impregnated someone, and that you also wouldn't be bothered if she aborted the foetus? For a famous person, it is even more relevant, due to the media coverage. This article doesn't give a 'he said, she said' account of it. There is only a seven word sentence; it is not disproportional. Foetus is better than baby. Foetus is neutral and correct. Calling a foetus a baby is both incorrect and POV, as it is saying that a foetus is a person, when it is actually part of its host. It also gives a strongly anti-abortion tone. We should present the info correctly and neutrally, which those seven words do. Saying the info has to be in a broadsheet is ridiculous, newspapers such as The Telegraph are highly unlikely to run any story about Bowers, whereas the Sun have done so many times. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Facing the Crowd (album)
Unreleased album with insufficient coverage to justify an article. Merge/redirect would satisfy guidelines at WP:NALBUM Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dane Bowers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.need2know.co.uk/learning/further_education/article.html/id%3D1390
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229232140/http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail/?display=news&code=cotn%3ALMR.L&action=article&articleid=4364031 to http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail/?display=news&code=cotn%3ALMR.L&action=article&articleid=4364031

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)