Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Bowman


 * 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 keep. Canley (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

George Bowman

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable Zen master/psychotherapist. I don't know if the references mention him or not, but there's nothing in the article to indicate that he's anything other than a run of th emill psychotherapist. Corvus cornix talk  04:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He is a Dharma heir of Seung Sahn Soen Sa Nim, this is common knowledge to anyone familiar with the Kwan Um School of Zen. Seung Sahn Soen Sa Nim made many students Dharma teachers, but he did not give full Dharma transmission to many; Bowman is one of the few to have received transmission. His Dharma name is Zen Master Bo Mun, which was given to him when he was made a Zen master by Seung Sahn. He is not just a "run-of-the-mill" psychotherapist, as you say. If you don't know something, you shouldn't say it. Referenced material. There is nothing to delete, notability has been established. (Mind meal (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC))
 * Notability is not inherited.  Corvus cornix  talk  04:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right. Notability is established by citations. Notability does not mean "above average", it means that the individual has been covered in published works. (Mind meal (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC))


 * Just a point, if you don't even know if the references listed speak to the subject's notability, then perhaps you haven't done the due diligence to nominate the article in the first place -- RoninBK T C 17:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a point. Please remember to be civil.  Inheritance of dharma may be notable to those who believe in this ... discipline, but to those of us who live in the real world, it's nonsense.   Corvus cornix  talk  05:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Corvus cornix, with all due respect, I do not know that you understand how notability is established on Wikipedia. Notability means that the subject has been noted by reliable sources—sources that have considered them worthy of note, otherwise they would never write about them. You have mistakenly equated notability with fame. I understand that you could care less about Zen Buddhism and Dharma transmission, and who the teachers are in the field that are considered an authority. The idea that it is nonsense is to be expected from someone ignorant of the subject, but this ignorance does not excuse nominating an article for deletion when it has numerous sources on the subject matter. Wikipedia is one of the top sites on the web because of its diverse content, not the content Corvus cornix finds to be relevant and notable. Let the authors and publishers of specific fields define relevance and notability—the task is obviously too large for yourself. (Mind meal (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC))


 * I wasn't incivil, merely pointing out that the deletion policy requires that if there are no sources listed, that you make an attempt to find sources to add before you list for deletion. In this case, by your own nom statement you didn't even bother to take a look at the references provided to determine whether they prove notability. Please see WP:JNN, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:IDONTKNOWIT. -- RoninBK T C 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Google search turns up nothing useful... while some of those could be used as secondary sources, there's a lack of reliable, verifiable primary sources. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  03:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:GNG ...secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability... - Operknockity (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What does Google have to do with this? We have University of California Press, Council Oak Books and Wisdom Publications as our sources. Please explain yourself further concerning the "Google search" logic, as you are ignoring the citations that are in the article itself. Do you think only web-based sources should be allowed on Wikipedia? Your reasoning is not based on any policy I've ever seen. Google search is not relevant. Non substantive argument. If you have not even read the primary source materials, how the heck can you call them unreliable?! Preposterous. (Mind meal (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)) 
 * Keep
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Keep It seems to be a niche subject and as such it wouldn't be surprising if Google doesn't turn up many entries or that he isn't well known outside his field, the article is properly sourced/referenced. As for notability is proven through the numerous publications/references. --Sin Harvest (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The sources listed are more than adequate to support notability. Jim Miller (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepArticle is nicely done and relevant.--74.138.83.10 (talk) 08:25, 28 January 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.