Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bowker


 * 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   no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

David Bowker

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

No evidence of notability Deb (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing demonstrable notability here. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  14:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep One of his books was due to be made into an ITV drama (though that seemingly fell through). However he's all over the Guardian and Independent and Manchester Evening News in Google searches, and I think he passes notability. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough coverage from independent reliable secondary sources needed per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BLP. Algébrico (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The subject does not pass any of the points for Notability (people) nor has received any coverage, much less significant, per Notability. While he has projects in the works that may qualify him Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 02:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is actually plenty of coverage easily found via Google News to show that his work is the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (WP:CREATIVE point 3). I've added some references to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil Bridger. An author with eight novels published by major houses can safely be presumed to be notable, as a general rule, even though much of the relevant coverage isn't in free online databases. Reviewed, it turns out, in magazines ranging from Esquire to Entertainment Weekly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:AUTHOR, Notability (books), or related guidelines is a presumption of notability if a person has eight novels published by major houses? The only thing I see is if a work is published by an Notability_(books) known to employ peer review then it is more likely to qualify as notable. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 21:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a real-world observation, and, as noted, proves accurate here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As it's topic drift from this AfD I've started the thread Publication by major houses and notability for authors. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 22:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good to see the article so improved since I first nominated it. It still baffles me that he gets so few Google hits - you shouldn't have to go to his book titles to find him! Deb (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Badflower (talk) 13:39 8 August, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep Anyone who takes the trouble to google the writer's last four novels will find rave reviews from  'Kirkus Reviews', 'The Independent on Sunday', 'The Literary Review', 'The Chicago Tribune', 'Esquire', 'Entertainment Weekly, 'The Times, 'The Express' and individuals as diverse as the actor Martin Clunes and the bestselling author Lee Child. Bowker's episodes for 'Casualty' and 'Coronation Street' must have each gained at least five million viewers, as both shows are regular ratings winners. Hardly global fame, then,  but solid evidence of notability.


 * KEEP. Been reading this thread with some bemusement. The author's most recent novel, 'How To Be Bad' has been optioned by 'Fight Club' screenwriter Jim Uhls. I would argue that this alone makes the author notable. Otherwise, you may as well delete most of the authors on WIKI...Suziekemp 17:36 7 August 2009
 * A bit curious that you are suddenly appearing from nowhere to comment on this proposal, Suziekemp. And you seem to have the same trouble placing your comments correctly as User:Badflower does. Deb (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The information included is original research because, although verifiable, it may be from different persons. There are no intersections of sources. Algébrico (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just type 'David Bowker writer' into google. He's there in abundance. Suziekemp 20:43 9 August 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Google hits and being optioned do not, in themselves, make a person notable. See Notability and Notability (people) for what can. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 23:12, 9 August 2009 (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.