Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Bowden (second nomination)


 * 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 delete. Luna Santin 02:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Blake Bowden
This article was originally kept by a very spare consensus at its first AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this closure, in light of concerns over sourcing and WP:BLP, for which see the DRV. This is procedural listing, so I abstain. Although there are no quorums at any XfD, closing this discussion with few commenters is discouraged, given the particular history here. Xoloz 15:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - If the article is true(being it not cited), apparently meets criteria for notability. Needs cleanup and citations.  Chris Kreider 15:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs a couple more citations, but I see no problems here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Chris Kreider and Badlydrawnjeff.Edward Wakelin 15:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If the comment at the bottom can be established as the subject of the article, then maybe it should be deleted, for now, I abstain.Edward Wakelin 22:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 *  Delete Weak Delete - I disagree that the article chronicles a notable individual. I personally could list as many poster/paper presentations for myself.  There aren't many publications, and I couldn't find significant data about the individuals who cowrote the papers with Blake.  Again I will point out that I have my name on several "publications" for doing little more than basic statistical analyses.  I almost changed my mind when reading the theatre section, but I will once again point out that adapting a well known book into a play is not really notable (in wikipedia anyway) until the adaptaion becomes notable (which it has not).  It seems to me that the only achievement worth mention is Blake's teen study.  Since the only citation points to a poster Blake presented at a large conference, I am inclined to see this article sent to the digital garbage bin unless somebody comes along to significantly improve the article. - b o b b y  17:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am sure many of us have made posters and given presentations. I can think of 4 I did my senior year but it was in front of no more than the entire department and some other people.  The posters and presentations claimed in this article, were given at some pretty notable functions it would appear, not just some guys speech for a class presentation. Chris Kreider
 * Comment - Fair enough. I just get nervous that there are a lot of people with distinguished academic credentials and it is just not reasonable to give each a page on Wikipedia.  I would still like to hear more about this individual before feeling satisfied with the article.  In the meantime, I have upgraded from delete to weak delete.  - b o b b y  18:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it be reasonable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Truly distinguished academics should have Wikipedia articles, but it takes quite a career to reach that point. Many articles, book chapters, and a few full books would usually be needed first. Nothing against Dr. Bowden, but there doesn't appear to be anything here that separates him from the typical Ph.D./Psy.D. Just look at any professor's vita online and you'll see what I mean. -- Tim D 20:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The claims of academic notability come only from a dissertation and a poster presentation, neither of which have been published with peer review. His actual publications are very few and far between, and he is not first author on any of them - which would make a difficult case for tenure at many universities, much less for an encyclopedia entry. Ultimately, most of the content does not appear to be verifiable through web searches or academic databases like PsychINFO. -- Tim D 20:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Very dubious notability. Mostly uncited. And it appears the subject is unhappy with the article (no, that's not a reasoning to delete on demand, but it tips the balance on an otherwise borderline) -Doc 21:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please delete. Subject is writing now (Blake Bowden) to say (as I have before) that a member of my family has done some postings.  I appreciate her enthusiasm, but have now restricted the computer access on this and other machines.  Yes.  It is this same machine - as well as my laptop.  I am pleased about a few of her submissions, but I don't endorse this article.  I have previously asked this this be removed (publicly and at 'the office') and I ask it again.  PLEASE REMOVE. Not sure how to sign so ~Blake Bowden~ asking to remove, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguyinblue (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 October 2006
 * Delete Without citations or references, we have no real case that Mr. Bowden is more notable than the average professor, so he fails WP:PROF in my eyes. There are no non-research claims to notability, so I believe he also fails WP:BIO.  GRBerry 18:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Theguyinblue. Arbusto 09:06, 1 November 2006 (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.