Talk:Full Service (book)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Use as a source[edit]

My impression is that all, or nearly all, of the information in this book has only one source, its author. Needless to say, it should never be used as a source for information about a living person, not because of allegations of homosexuality, which at this point is not defamation per se, but because of invasion of privacy. Any use about someone who is deceased should be specifically attributed to the author. Improper use of this book as a source opens the window to inclusion of information which is made up or malicious, allegations about J. Edgar Hoover being exhibit A. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It explicitly says Bowers is making these claims, including extra explicit about Hoover. Are any of these people not dead now?PumpkinSky talk 18:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Double-checked, they're all dead, no BLP issues at all.PumpkinSky talk 19:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the author is still living. He does publicize himself, yet WP:BLP still applies. --George Ho (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's self disclosed in publicly available book that he himself wrote. Any info from that book, which is what this is, is a non issue. He discussed this, including his behavior, on a very popular national TV show. Get real.PumpkinSky talk 22:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Hoover goes, this is nothing compared to what's in the actual WP article, see J_edgar_hoover#Sexuality. I haven't the time to look in every other article, but the general "issues" surrounding the other celebrities are generally well-known. I see no real BLP problem here. Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More a reliable source problem. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion only, I don't understand how this book made it onto Wikipedia.

It says twice in the article that attorneys vetted the book. Apparently no one understands what that means. It means that references to living people were taken out so that the publisher could not be sued by anyone. You cannot libel the dead.

The second problem I have is that there are inaccuracies throughout the book, and I don't understand why these weren't at least questioned by someone here.

1) The Duke and Duchess of Windsor story. The Duke is referred to in the book as Eddie. He was called David. Bowers' allegations fly in the face of other books on this couple or where this couple are mentioned, including Little Gloria, Happy at Last, and another book that I will find the reference for if anyone wants it, which states that Mrs. Simpson was some sort of dominatrix for "Eddie."

2) There are no photos of Scotty with any celebrity, and many of the photos are captioned incorrectly.

3) He states that Cary Grant and Randolph Scott lived together in the '50s. I highly doubt this, more like the '30s.

4) He discussed a hairstyle for Katharine Hepburn in the film "Adam's Rib," but the date he gives is several years before the movie was made.

5) He states that Katharine Hepburn had bad skin. I've never read that, including in the book Flesh & Fantasy that published unretouched photos of many stars.

6) He states that he supplied Katharine Hepburn with 150 women and when interviewed, defended this, saying, well, it comes out to three a year. Bowers started his Hollywood sojourn after the war. This would mean that after Katharine Hepburn left Hollywood and was living in New York and Connecticut and into her eighties, Scotty was still supplying her with women.

7) He says he lied about Tyrone Power in 1979 and now he's telling the truth.

8) A writer for the LA Times, Larry Harnisch kind of as a lark, has been carefully going through the book and questioning the information in his "Fun with Fact-Checking" Blog, and cites much more information.

9)If this book is considered a source, what then happens to books that talk about Spencer Tracy's Catholicism (which Scotty says the studio invented, debunked by James Curtis' detailed bio among others) and other sources that don't seem to agree with what's written? How does one decide what to use? As someone who for 25 years has been doing research for some excellent biographers who use things like source notes, I don't have an answer, except that this book would not be considered reliable.Chandler75 (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions stem from a critique of the book, the answers are either in the book or in third party reviews and critiques of the book. Please read WP:RS and find appropriate sources that support your concerns. Many articles have a "critical reception" or a "controversies" section where other views are summarized. But also read WP:UNDUE, as it is clear on its face that the book is intended to be a rather sensationalist work that may or may not stand up to factual review, so a lengthy debunking of his views is not needed and a summary linking to reliable sources will do. Montanabw(talk) 17:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected spelling of name[edit]

Corrected spelling of Katharine Hepburn's name in the article, but not in the Reference. I do not know how to do that without making the Reference a red link. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been misspelled in the ref. I'll add (sic). PumpkinSky talk 10:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2014)[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full Service: My Adventures in Hollywood and the Secret Sex Lives of the Stars → Full Service (book) – I could propose Full Service (Bowers book), but no other book of the same name has been proven notable at this time. Therefore, at default, I'm proposing "(book)" instead. WP:SUBTITLES encourages using subtitles to disambiguate any book of the same name, like "Full Service". However, in the light of Talk:Like a Virgin (book) and Talk:Kitchen Confidential (book), perhaps parenthetical disambiguation should be used instead. When this discussion is closed, I will discuss WP:SUBTITLES and propose changes to that guideline (it's not a policy). Edit: My mistake. I re-read WP:SUBTITLES carefully, and it usually neither encourages nor discourages using subtitles. It says use either short titles per WP:CONCISE or long titles that are not "extremely long". George Ho (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use Full Service (Scotty Bowers book), as the author is indicated as "Scotty Bowers". And all other disambiguated forms using the artist use the artist's name, not an ambiguous surname. The practice of using surnames is not consistent with general Wikipedia practice -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NCB, if there is more than one article about book of the same name, we must disambiguate by only surname unless there are similar surnames. --George Ho (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at variance with general Wikipedia practice, and also making confusing names, when multiple famous authors have the same surname, (which is quite common) even if no other author with the same surname has the same book name. In other articles, we use the whole name, such as with songs. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOOKDAB would help. Books and songs may be treated differently in Wikipedia. That's all. --George Ho (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Full Service (support) to name as proposed. I don't see a need to disambiguate to Scotty or Bowers. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand that a name should be recognisable, which "Full Service" seems not to do fully, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt, that is not enough as "Full Service" redirects to "Full service" which is a disambiguation page that includes Full Service (band). Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't the subtitle a form of WP:NATURAL disambiguation, which is generally preferred over parenthetical disambiguation? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC) (Comment struck after reading WP:SUBTITLE and WP:BOOKDAB.) —BarrelProof (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that changing the name will create more ambiguity rather than less. What is wrong with using the actual, specific name of the book? This seems like the surest way for someone looking for it to find it.QuizzicalBee (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QuizzicalBee, if there is another book Full Service, we would have used "Bowers book". Well, compare this to Talk:Like a Virgin (book). --George Ho (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 14 October 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - decision on title should be deferred until decision on RFC below is rendered Mike Cline (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Full Service (book) → Scotty Bowers – Per the criticisms/observations made in the previous move discussion archived on the Talk page, the article has now been substantially revised to include more references external to the book, and reframed it so it can more appropriately revert to an article about Bowers himself. There is a new documentary on his life (entitled "Scotty") being released in 2016 — footage was previewed at this year's Cannes Festival, and this is likely to bring more visitors to a biographical page. Engleham (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose you should have started a new article, instead of rewriting an existing article on a notable topic to be something else. Wikipedia is not restricted in the number of articles it can contain. REVERT to the state of the article back in July 2015, before the rewriting began. Instead you should just build a new article at your proposed location. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC: One or two articles?[edit]

Policy based close. Policy TITLE says, unsurprisingly, The title indicates what the article is about. An article at the title "Full_Service_(book)" must be about the book. If anyone questions the book's notability then the proper forum would be to nominate this Article For Deletion.

I decline to close on a hypothetical author biography article.

  1. If someone believes he is Notable, a close here cannot prohibit the general public from creating that article.
  2. If someone believes he is not Notable, the proper forum would be to nominate that Article For Deletion.
Alsee (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The long-standing article discusses a book whose credibility is disputed and whose topic is Hollywood stars' private lives. Someone revised the article to make it a biography of one person, who wrote just the book. It was reverted back to an article about the book. WP:notability, WP:notability (people), and WP:notability (books) should help us determine which one is more notable, the book or the author. Having two articles is suggested also. Which option do you pick?

  1. Only one article, the book
  2. Only one article, the biography of the book's author
  3. Two articles, the book and the author

--Relisted. George Ho (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • One article, on Bowers himself, with a subsidiary section on the book. It should always have been set up that way. In any case, the story has moved beyond the book, to include a documentary on the individual, so it is common sense - unless there is to be an article on the documentary as well! I rewrote the article to address the two issues raised in the original discussion - that the article didn't include enough references from other sources, and was simply framed around the book. Engleham (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • TWO articles WP:NOTPAPER Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no limit on the number of topics it can host, so no reason to conflate multiple topics together into one article. The book has a prima facie claim on notability (the article exists, and has had people look at it through a publicized consensus discussion without having been deleted), and reactions to and reception of the book pertain to the book and not specifically the person. As it is a memoir, most of the information about what is contained in the book does not need to exist in the book article itself, and can be split off into the biography article. The book article should be written as a book article, and not a summary of the book itself. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree; he has neither won an award nor been widely recognized in his field. Also, he has been neither important nor original nor significant. Actually, he is notable for only one book. George Ho (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"neither important nor original nor significant". Patently false to the extent it reads as disingenuous – one can only presume a desire for mischief-making, or self-loathing, or both. Bowers reputation as is well known throughout Hollywood and the motion picture industry. The memoir received wide coverage, including in the New York Times, and network television, and was endlessly discussed in online media. For many years Bowers has been a go-to source for Hollywood authors e.g. William_J._Mann, and is credited as such in their works. Wikipedia provides entries for procurers such as Heidi Fleiss and Madame Claude, and prostitutes such as Cora Pearl, Catherine Walters & Cléo de Mérode. Fleiss is the author of two books, but neither have Wikipedia entries. Simply her entry, with books listed. Engleham (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer this: has Bowers ever done anything outside his personal life, "profession", and sleazy memoir? George Ho (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has Heidi Fleiss or Madame Claude? The question is irrelevant. Bowers has achieved fame because of his personal life and profession, whether you find it "sleazy" or not. If you want to know what careers he's had outside that, try reading the additions I expended a considerable amount of time writing -- additions which you clearly didn't read before you summarily reverted them! Was that not selfish of you? Or is this to be excused because - as you posted on Wikipedia in 2011 when you were cornered by other contributors for other troll behaviour -- you suffer from autism. Or so you claimed your psychologist had diagnosed. "I have struggled to understand the basic logics of anything" etc etc etc. As far as I'm aware, autism doesn't induce selfish mischief-making veiled by feigned naivety. But you clearly labour under the delusion you think it works for you on some level, otherwise you wouldn't continue to do it. However, it would be great for you, and everyone else, if you realised that it doesn't. Well enough of the backstory and sermon. I just wanted to make you aware that, like others on Wikipedia, we got your number long ago, and don't have much time for the games. Engleham (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right, what about long-standing policy WP:BLP1E, part of WP:BLP? And his memoir is criticized for making dubious claims about Hollywood figures. George Ho (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bowers is a figure beyond the book: the upcoming documentary on his life; the fact he continually referenced and sought out: this makes the case stronger for a page for him, with the book a subsidiary. As for scepticism of his claims: the entry acknowledges it. That doesn't make him less notable. And support for the claims I addressed with multiple references in the version you selfishly reverted without reading. Engleham (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and it's still the same content with unsourced additions. Why not add "Background" about the author and then cite pages instead? George Ho (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I checked, and it's still the same content with unsourced additions". WTF? I added an entire new section with references. But as this exchange demonstrates, it's pointless to respond to you because of your autism, or whatever is going on in your head. Engleham (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing your username clicks my head, but I had to look through your contributions... Wait, I remember you; you were the one who tried to add in Aaron Schock's alleged sexuality, which consensus disagreed to include. And why are you trying to change content? Also, would you stop making implications of incompetence and incapability? If not, I'll discuss your block logs here. Anyway, I don't see why responding to you is pointless. I checked the "prosecution" statement and found it unsourced. I looked through sources and found none. Same for the Deep Throat thing. George Ho (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any event - the content is the same - unsupported contentious claims about deceased persons. An easy game to play, I fear, for the tabloidaholics in this world. Collect (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 26 October 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Other discussion ongoing; no concurrent requests, intentional or not. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full Service (book) → Scotty Bowers – Only one direct response to original move request. Now seeking further comment. Please see Oct 8 version for suggested content if move request followed through with. Engleham (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 22 January 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No objection to creation of a separate article called Scotty Bowers, if good sources can be found. The editors in this discussion take note that the book already exists, so let the present title be about the book. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full Service (book) → Scotty Bowers – The article currently redirects from 'Scotty Bowers' to 'Full Service', the title of his autobiography. However, a new documentary on him is soon for release. It is not titled 'Full Service', but 'Scotty'. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cannes-two-hot-hollywood-themed-796551) He doesn't warrant separate articles for each, which would also involve unnecessary additional admin. The entry should be under his own name, with the book, documentary, and other life details listed there. Engleham (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First - unless and until that documentary is released and actually found notable per WP requirements, this is premature. Meanwhile, if you wish to set up a redirect to this page, consider doing so. At this point, your request is premature. Collect (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which would you prefer: (A) this article be rewritten as Scotty Bowers the person, with the book and doco incorporated; or (B) a new article on Scotty Bowers the person, that links to the existing book article, and possibly another for the doco when it arrives. I'm presuming that, aside from notability issues, the less information about him on Wikipedia, the happier you'd be, in which case option A? Or Option B with two or three pages on your Watchlist to fret about? Engleham (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an existing book. When the documentary actually exists and is notable is when this discussion should take place. I do not have any opinion about any person - only that Wikipedia guidelines and policies are followed. We do not have a crystal ball, and a huge number of "proposed films" never end up being completed. If we had articles on each of them, we would be overrun with non-existent films. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collect: OK, let me try and understand what you said in the previous post. Were you saying that you'd prefer a separate article on Bowers the person that linked to this article, rather than this article be rewritten as Bowers the person, incorporating the book. Yes/no? If yes, my concern is that, while Bowers is notable, does his notability justify two articles. (Or three, if one is written for the doc as well.) I'd argue no. Engleham (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote nothing whatsoever of the sort. Please just read what I write and not try placing positions into them which are not clearly present. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This article is about a book. Such articles are named as the book is. Unless it's rewritten as a biography of a person, it would be misleading to move. I suggest you wait until you have an article on the person, and then consider to merge, but I doubt that it will make sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so far that's 1 vote for a new separate article on Bowers the person. Carry on. Engleham (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose this has been discussed over and over again. The nominator should stop asking, since this is a book article and the book is notable. Just either write a biography and stop trying to usurp the book article; or just don't do anything, since it's been discussed already. Half the content of this article would need to be deleted to make it even close to being a biography article. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the documentary is notable, then write an article on the documentary. WP:NOTPAPER Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no limit to the number of articles. If you want a biography article then write one. WP:CRYSTALBALLing the notability of the documentary is not a good reason to do anything. Regarding a notable documentary, a Wikipedia documentary article is also not a Wikipedia biography article, it would be a documentary article-- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Engleham (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)  Personal attack removed Collect (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose The book appears notable on its own, which means a new article should be written about the author instead of renaming this one. At this point, that would be premature, as his current notability is tied into the book. clpo13(talk) 22:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge with Scotty Bowers[edit]

NO CONSENSUS:

Supporters of a merge argue that the two articles repeat much of the same material, while opponents of a merge argue that there is enough off-book material about him to justify an article at Scott Bowers. Even after discounting the opinions of the new accounts, there is no consensus to merge Scotty Bowers into Full Service (book). Cunard (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the author of his memoir, Full Service, notable? Why or why not? If not, shall the biography be merged into the other article? George Ho (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Person not specifically notable And noting that this book may be by Lionel Friedberg, who has written other material. Amazingly enough, many "memoirs" are actually more "as told to" than anything else. Collect (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Merge seems appropriate here, if only because the two articles repeat essentially the exact same information, the article on the memoir simply being a little more robust. I think probably minimal notability can be established for both topics, but not without relying on the same sources. Ultimately the sources are focusing upon Bowers' claims, and evidence which would go to support them than upon the man or book itself. This is more a matter of editorial discretion about how we define the scope and borders of these interrelated topics than it is a matter of WP:Notability being lacking for any particular sub-topic we might pull out; depending on what topic one says they are looking for and how they spin it, you could make a decent argument that the man and the memoir are notable under a strict reading of policy, but I still think a merger is the best way to handle this material. Snow let's rap 18:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Scotty Bowers is not significantly notable. There are redundancies across both article so a merge would be seamless without creating too large of an article. Meatsgains (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bowers continues to be interviewed and has featured in a string of articles. There is also an upcoming documentary on him, a portion of which has already previewed at Cannes. If merged, the book article should be subsumed into the Bowers article, not the other way round. Engleham (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Engleham, just admit it. The consensus above opposes a biography of the memoirist and wants it merged into the book article. Why do you insist that this person passes the WP:BLP policy or WP:BLP1E? George Ho (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Back story on Bowers: the article was called Scotty Bowers, Ho renamed it to the title the book. It should have been reverted, but to leave Ho to his games, I created the separate Scotty Bowers article). The article on the individual should be the primary one, as Bowers is the subject of a forthcoming documentary and continues to be the subject of articles in his own right, as well as engaging in other activities. He recently authored the introduction to a book of WW2 photographs, which is referenced on the Scotty Bowers article. Engleham (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you lost your mind or something? You dare accuse me of trolling? I got news for you; people in previous RMs opposed your proposal to renamhe article to the person's name. Notice that I only comment in a first few RMs but not the latest RM. You should be careful of making accusations before you make them again. George Ho (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm not Collect. Get it? George Ho (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nor am I, you. The problem is apparently that the one editor is rather insistent that what he is absolutely certain is the "truth" must override Wikipedia policies. Therefore everyone else is in a conspiracy of some sort :( Collect (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The documentary on Bowers does not follow the narrative of Full Service. It instead focuses on Bowers in cinema verite fashion, creating a completely different story line. This therefore justifies a separate entity from the book and bolsters his position as a notable person. Furthermore, Bowers has been featured on television shows, given speaking engagements, and penned the intro to My Buddy: World War II Laid Bare. Grahamhigh (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)This editor appears to have made extremely few edits Collect (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Keep As others have mentioned, he's got a fair public/media profile in L.A. that's independent of Friedberg's book. Merging an article on an individual into an article on their biography/autobiography would be odd. Should be other way round if anything. Portland29 (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)This editor appears to have made extremely few edits Collect (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep. There's enough difference and distinction between the two articles to maintain them separately.QuizzicalBee (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It’s very clear that Bowers has a media presence beyond the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark1966 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Yet another editor who does not seem to exist Collect (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • With an exception of QuizzicalBee, the previous ones who voted "Keep" were warned by an administrator about meatpuppetry. George Ho (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice try, Ho. (One can only endorse the May 21 comment on your Talk page by your former mentor User:Begoon, and your own 'admissions' on his page-- which as you also imply, are merely more wearisome tactics.) I was also curious about the posters of the RfC: one of them also posted on Jane Jacobs, and it turns out the company that has made the doco on Bowers has also made a doco on her. So they may be from the company. In any case, as Collect, who knows all about everything reminds us, RfCs are about consensus, which is defined not by votes, but by argument. And it's coming through very clear that Bowers has a presence beyond the book, so precluding a merge. Or at least the merge proposed in this RfC. Merging the book article into the biographical article wouldn't be a problem. And then more people's time could be wasted debating your next ploy that the biographical article be renamed as the book title. Engleham (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Engleham, how did you observe that Graham11 and Grahamhigh are the same person besides being similarly related names and just another same biography? Also, why do you think that the book is less notable than the person? George Ho (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. Grahamhigh looks like could be from the company. A mere guess. I didn't know who Jane Jacobs was. "why do you think that the book is less notable than the person" For the same reasons as the others here: the book may have introduced Bowers to a wider public, but he had a presence before and after. For example, the book doesn't mention the porn film he allegedly starred in, nor does it detail his life since. He's authored the intro of another book; assists other authors; and the doco does not follow the thread of the book, etc, etc. As stated upthread, merging an identity who is notable for several things into their autobiography, when they have a public presence beyond it, rather the other way round makes no sense. The Happy Hooker the book is merged into the article for Xaviera Hollander, not the other way round. And the The Happy Hooker (film) exists as a separate article. Engleham (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brought here by the bot; !vote keep as per argument advanced by Skylark1966 (obvious off-book presence). BlueSalix (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Full_Service_(book)&oldid=1206003785"