Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bouchier


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

David Bouchier

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria on WP:PEOPLE dougweller (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is a mess but the autobiography here shows that Bouchier is an author and award-winning essayist and broadcaster on two US National Public Radio Stations, previously an academic at the University of Essex. According to this biographical blurb, he has received two awards for his prose and has written a regular humour column for the Sunday New York Times from 1996-2003, which establishes some kind of notability. The image in the article is probably a copyvio. Mathsci (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment He doesn't mention the awards on his website, and I can't find any evidence that the awards even exist, let alone are notable. There's no information about who awarded them either. So I'd say we can pretty safely assume the awards aren't notable. I don't see how he meets the criteria at WP:CREATIVE which actually is what he'd need to meet. dougweller (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * SO? ! Well, he's a broadcaster! This page has every right to exist.--67.80.57.142 (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)GooglePedia12
 * REASONS FOR PRESERVATION:
 * I worked VERY HARD on this article
 * David Bouchier is famous! Not only is he a reporter, but he expresses his view on things!
 * NOBODY ELSE WANTS IT DELETED!
 * It's best if it's LEFT ALONE!
 * I READ THE CRITERIA FOR DELETION. WHATEVER ABOUT THIS ARTICLE WILL GET IT DELETED, THAT CAN JUST BE EDITED. IT SAYS, EDITING IS AN ALTERNATIVE.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.57.142 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-15 14:16:54 (this is Googlepedia12 who forgot to login)
 * Shouting will not make an impression, nor will those poor arguments that don't even try to apply Wikipedia's policies in the article's favor.--Atlan (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, how many WP:ATA pitfalls did this fall into just now? I would count the delete !votes; there are several people who want this deleted. MuZemike  ( talk ) 19:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment User talk:GooglePedia12, what is wrong with the article is that he is not notable by Wikipedia standards. Being a broadcaster or a journalist does not make him notable. Please read the link I gave to WP:CREATIVE and address that. Have you got any reliable second party sources about him, for instance? Everyone expresses their views on things, that doesn't make everyone notable.  dougweller (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. Writing a column, even a prominent column, does not make you notable, unless it makes people write about you. gnfnrf (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Web broadcaster, books which appear to be self-published, no reliable 3rd party references. Fails notability and verifiability criteria, sorry. Additional note to the article author: Britain and England are not the same. Ros0709 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep now that notability and verifiability have been addressed by User:CactusWriter. Nominator was correct to bring the article here in its original form. Ros0709 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Doug's reasoning. Mathsci (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is a load of crap. It's about a non-notable person who has a local radio program, is written in the style of a third grader, and contains a lot of rambling, inconsequential, and incorrect information. (For example, he's been broadcasting for many years, not just since 2007.)  Articles like this give WP a bad reputation. Anyone who wants to learn anything substantial about David Bouchier should check his web page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.129.120 (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability, nothing but primary sources as reference. No notability is claimed in the article nor is any apparant from a Google search (News or otherwise).  Not seeing anything other than a author who is also a podcaster which isn't enough to satisfy Notability (people).  Sorry this has upset the original creator of this article but that energy might be better spent reading up notability guidelines.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - no way to verify this person is notable. For example, he gets | no hits on Google news and |a few  on Google itself.  I'd like to see more evidence of the awards he has won. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability demonstrated. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A search of the NY Times shows David Bouchier wrote a regular humor column for the New York Times Sunday edition called "Out of Order". It appears he wrote the column from 1996 to 2003. I am reserving judgment on notability while I do a further search. — Cactus Writer |   needles  14:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * More: He was on a panel with Andy Borowitz at the 2003 ASJA Writers Conference discussing humor in writing. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Strong Keep - As a moderator at the 2007 ASJA Writers Conference, here's what the American Society of Journalists and Authors says: David Bouchier, ASJA; is the award-winning essayist for NPR Stations WSHU & WSUF. For ten years he wrote a weekly humor column in the Sunday New York Times. His most recent books are The Song Of Suburbia (essays), and The Cats and the Water Bottles about a year in a French village. His latest book, Writer at Work: Reflections on the Art and Business of Writing, was published in 2005. That the ASJA thinks he significant certainly means he passes WP:CREATIVE. This article was just poorly written, but that is no reason for a deletion. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why a 'strong' keep with so little evidence? That looks like a blurb supplied by Bouchier himself. Once again, a source is found that mentions an award but doesn't specify what it is, which sounds as though the award wasn't notable enough for the author to want to be specific. The ASJA itself isn't that impressive (it's just an organisation of free-lance non-fiction writers, offering the various services, etc), and I note that the book mentioned as his latest book is published by them, not by a professional publishing house. So was his 2007 book. If he can't even get his books published by a standard publishing house, where is his notability? dougweller (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Doug, I agree, the "strong" part of that keep is probably a bit over the top. However, my conclusion after the search was that he passed notability -- not for any single piece -- but rather for an extended body of work on a national level. It was finding that he had been a regular contributing columnist to Newsday, he had been a featured essayist for NPR, the result of which was a compilation of his essays, he had been a regular columnist for the NY Times, four of his essays are included in Mirth of a Nation: The Best Contemporary Humor, he does currently contribute to NPR, he is not simply a member of ASJA but considered notable enough by his peers to be a panelist and speaker, etc., etc. The thing is - I keep fact-checking his online bio and everything I find continues to corroborate it. I agree with you that the two awards (1996 Best Humor Column and 1995 Best Radio Feature) are probably regional press club awards and of minor note. I think overall, he definitely achieves notability as a feature writer. This article was terribly written and, as is, deserved an Afd nom. But my feeling is that Bouchier is an actual somebody noteworthy on a national level, the article should be rewritten and kept. — Cactus Writer |   needles  21:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm striking my strong keep to just a keep. I think I am wrong about the national extent of his NPR programs since the NPR site doesn't list his bio in their group of national personalities. — Cactus Writer |   needles  10:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You added a bibliography and a search engine that lists his columns for the NY Times as references. So that's all self-written and doesn't pass the notability guideline of significant coverage. Releasing a large body of work doesn't make one notable.--Atlan (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The references were added simply to meet verifiability. Nothing more. And the information I added didn't imply otherwise. I have found absolutely zero significant coverage for Bouchier -- and I'm uncertain that much exists. However, my argument here was whether his notable peers judge him to be notable by sharing a professional panel with him, and as a speaker; and including his work in a book of acknowledged top American humorists; and using him as an expert opinion on humor writing. I'm reading this as a form of "published peer recognition" in the general notability guidelines. — Cactus Writer |   needles  10:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've read the ongoing research and discussion here and I stand by my opinion that there's no evidence of notability here. --Dweller (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep David Bouchier is very important. Oh. Alrighty. 'Just because HE WON AWARDS and is broadcasted on PUBLIC RADIO doesn't make him important.' That, in a nutshell, is what some of you people are saying. ---GooglePedia12 23:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)GooglePedia12
 * Comment This is about notability according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and you still haven't shown notability. Broadcasting on public radio and minor local awards (which these presumably are because even he doesn't seem to think they are worthwhile identifying specifically) does not show notability. And he doesn't seem able to get a regular publishing house to publish his books, which suggests again that he doesn't meet our standards. dougweller (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Efforts to improve the quality of the article have been largely succesful, yet they fail to address the issue of notability.--Atlan (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2008 (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.