Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Bowker (writer, cybercrime expert)


 * 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   merge to Art Bowker. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Art Bowker (writer, cybercrime expert)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No indication of notability, no secondary sources, none found via Google Web or Google News. Apparently nobody but Bowker has written anything about Bowker. The author, User:Abowker, may have a conflict of interest. Huon (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I would reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEOPLE#Academics

My question is what are you google searching on?

Few articles exist on correctional supervision involving cybercrime...those that were are either written by Art Bowker or contain citations citing his work... Do a Google,  scholar for the computer monitoring and offenders.... Try juvenile sexing... Computer delinquents....probation and cybercrime. Bowker is not just saying he is an expert in the area but is pointing to articles he has written on the topic...in a wide varied on independent publlications... Additional he has written the only book on the subject... If you do a google Art Bowker, News search and last article from law technology news appears...

http://www.google.com/search?q=bowker&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#sclient=tablet-gws&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&tbo=d&tbm=nws&q=art+bowker&oq=art+bowker&gs_l=tablet-gws.3...6752.13248.1.14481.15.11.0.4.0.1.689.2814.0j6j1j3j0j1.11.0...0.0...1ac.IeKTEnj1IFY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=8053aa8cf94477cf&biw=1024&bih=672

A Google search under scholar reflect his work as well as others who have cited his work

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22art+Bowker%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36

Second... Under the surname Bowker....it fits with the efforts of other with the same name...this avoiding the stub problem..

Some commented that if some else submits it it migh be consider...wow... So if he gets his mother or father to submit it might be okay...interesting...what if he gets his friends and colleagues to do it...what if he opens up different accounts from libraries and does it... Either his work is enough or not..

The citation cites work over ten yrs...published work...

The cybercrime expert can be deleted and just leave writer...which he clearly is...on a topic that less than five individuals have written on.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abowker (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference your comment....it is not what he has written but what others have written about him..
 * Comment - the problem is not what Bowker has or hasn't written, but what others have written about him. His own articles cannot establish his notability. Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources; this article has none, and as I said, I couldn't find anything significant. Regarding "someone else should submit it": That, of course, means someone else who is independent of Bowker. As WP:COI explains, writing about close relatives is also discouraged. Yes, you could game the system and try to submit the article in a way that we don't recognize, but as this article shows, people with a conflict of interest tend to bend Wikipedia's guidelines on topics they feel strongly about - they should have the self-awareness to resist the temptation. Huon (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Per your guidelines for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEOPLE#Academics,

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. As I noted this person is widely cited by peers and other sources. .

2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Again this is hits this one. The book written that was published. ....multiple articles in multiple independent articles.

4.The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

The policy on autobiographies is not prohibited. It is recommended that it not be done but not prohibited. If it is to be prohibited put it in the rules, don’t recommend against it and then justify it under other rational.

As for “gaming” if someone asks someone to write it for them and they agree that would not be gaming. Do you really think that for all those entries out there on people that they have a fan base that just does it for them? Sure there are some but others are created or more then likley bought to be put up. That is how people make sure what is written is what they want out there.

I also took a look at other entries on individuals...one in fact under the name Bowker... Richard Bowker (writer).... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bowker_(writer)... He is a writer of science novel and fiction.... AND.... He got nomination for a award that not well know. This is not to minimize his work but there are no independent sources about him...in fact there is a notation “This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject. Please add citations from reliable and independent sources. (April 2008)” Which, is kind of ironic that this entry has been unchanged for 4 yrs since it was noted that it lacked "reliable and independent sources."...the very thing that you say is the reason this entry should be deleted.

By the way, I added an entry where Art Bowker is quoted in SC Magazine...in an article written by someone other than Bowker. Additionally, added he is an Instructor with an university. All things that are independent...verify further that he in academics and expert in cybercrime in regards to corrections.

Be consistent in your rules. Put the same advisement that is in Richard Bowker's entry on this one. If this entry does not met the requirements under Academics, then delete it be all means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abowker (talk • contribs) 13:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Okay so I stated the obvious to you great gatekeepers... That a committed person could get entries in under you watchful eyes. This comment was response to one objection that noted it was an autobio and thereby implying that justified it being deleted...which is not the stated position as noted... Discouraged yes.. But not illegal.. Here is a news flag... Folks hire folks to put things on the web...including here... if the intent was to bypass your rules to get it up that would have already happened
 * Very weak keep per WP:BARE. I note that Abowker's obvious COI, expressions of grief, and poor arguments do him no good. That having been said ... he appears to have been interviewed and noted in significant coverage by some 'inside' periodicals.  Whether that's enough for consensus in unclear to me. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As for grief what the heck are you talking about? And the comment ...."inside periodical" was that suppose to be jab against Sc mag? You grand wizards of info have allowed an entry that has less sources that this on up for 5yrs...with an acknowledgement of same.. See richard Bowker noted above. I know he didn't write it....his publist did.

The point again had the 1st person who made the deletion nom done a google search with the scholar option, which is noted as something that is suppose to be done...they would have seen this person cited by others...one of the factors noted under acdemadia...., are those works to also be cited to show this persons work is noteworthy? Again these articles were not self published.. They were independent publications...not blog entries. Bowker is one of only a handful of individuals who have written on managing offenders computer use, he is quote in print in an independent publication that is accepted in the field of computer security. Here is another that can be added http://crimcast.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/art-bowkers-the-cybercrime-handbook-for-community-corrections-managing-offender-risk-in-the-21st-century/, here is another...http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lawenforcement/2012/05/24/cybercrime-managing-offender-risk-in-the-21-century. But I am hestiate to add them... As sc mag got a wise crack... Blog radio..even done by two criminal justice professor, is probably to shallow for you electronic literary giants... What the heck... Added them I will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abowker (talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay the blog radios entries have been added...neither of which are related to Bowker...they are independent...on down by two college professors...the other by an author and retired police officer...

One thought occurred to me... You don't prohibit autobio..they are discourage yes...how do you reconcile conflict of interest with that? The are ok but discourage...but yet you pull out the conflict of interest card..when wouldnt an autobio involve a cinflict of interest...seem like y are pulling the cof card to bypass the lack of prohbition on autobio..

Is this entry supported..yes...is he cited by others yes...is he reflected by independent other sources with no ties to him as in expert yes...  Is he an expert in something noteworthy.... Supervision of cyber offenders...your call.. All I ask is follow the rules and be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abowker (talk • contribs) 00:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Autobiography is discouraged but not prohibited. What does need to happen, however, is that content must be verifiable through a published source — which frequently fails to happen in an autobiographical situation. The key thing to bear in mind in a deletion debate is that for an article to be kept, it must be demonstrated that the subject is the object of multiple instances of substantial coverage in so-called reliable sources. COI is less important than the demonstration of this published coverage, so long as a subject is dealt with neutrally, in an encyclopedic tone, and the facts asserted are sourced. Carrite (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies on several counts... First for not signing the post that are for keeping,., they are all by one person...seems this should be sophicated enough to auto sign since I am login...second thing my spelling and typing...using in I-pad is tough for this...finally I may have expressed a bit of frustration at what appears to be an attitude ... Not that there is one..but to a newbie I must be too sensitive.. In short sorry about the wise cracks...Abowker (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)AbowkerAbowker (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)




 * Comment - This does indeed seem to be a recognized expert in the area of cybercrime. Whether sources can be mustered is less definite. In the event of a "Delete" result I would hope this would be userfied to A. Bowker pending additional sourcing. Carrite (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay...this is kind of funny...this group has been debating this entry, which got quick attention as it was tied to the Bowker surname.... I thought I had deleted another entry.... Art Bowker (writer) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Bowker.......which was just move without any deletion notations....and it has less info that this one, which was modified to address concerns raised....LOL. Sounds like time to consolidate as opposed to delete...Abowker (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)abowker


 * Delete as an unnecessary duplicate of (and unlikely search term for) Art Bowker, after merging anything worth merging. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Change vote to merge per Dori -- the article already exists under the other name -- into Art Bowker, but without a redirect. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2012 (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.