Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bowie (lawyer)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

James Bowie (lawyer)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This individual seems non-notable. He received non-substantive media coverage in 2020 because he offered free legal services. To the extent that this individual is known at all (he is allegedly known for his Twitter activity but he has only 31.5k Twitter followers), it was because of a single event (i.e., WP:BLP1E) in 2022 during the Canadian trucker convoy, as indicated by the references on the article. He then received minor coverage related to ensuing scandals. The article also makes claims about this individual having been alleged to have committed crimes (which are not the primary basis of his alleged notability) and for which he has not been convicted, in apparent contradiction of WP:BLPCRIME. This seems very much like BLP1E to me. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. (As article creator) . WP:BLPCRIME is not relevant. The article makes no suggestion of criminality. I don't like him, but that's not relevant. WP:BLP1E would only apply if all three criteria were met, which would mean that:
 * reliable sources only mentioned him in the context of one event (he is mentioned in context of three events, criterion not met)
 * he is likely to remain low profile, as defined here: WP:LOWPROFILE (obviously not, he continues to make news and seek attention, criterion not met)
 * he didn't play an important role in the event(s) he is notable for (that is open to debate)
 * BLP1E is only applicable if each of three conditions is met (I quote from WP:BLP1E) so that's an obvious fail. What is relevant is if he meets the WP:GNG. I believe he does; I perceive that he is notable for his provision of free legal services in 2020, for his citizen journalism in 2022 and for more than one investigation into his legal work between 2022 and 2023. I present some examples of significant coverage about him here:
 * In 2020 https://ottawa.citynews.ca/local-news/lawyer-offers-free-legal-service-to-anyone-who-is-arrested-at-ottawas-anti-racism-march-2414073
 * In 2022 https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/ottawa-lawyer-james-bowie-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-suspended-by-lso-in-unrelated-proceedings/372287
 * In 2023 https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-lawyer-in-legal-services-for-sex-scandal-probed-for-mishandling-money
 * In summary: WP:BLPCRIME is not relevant, deletion on the basis of WP:BLP1E fails on at least two of three criteria (check out WP:NOTBLP1E if you have doubts), WP:GNG (the key thing here) is met. CT55555 (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Events, Law,  and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "he was accused of offering cocaine and soliciting sexual contact" is accusing someone of a crime for which they are not notable and for which they have not been convicted. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems like WP:SYNTH. I have no idea if seeking sex or offering drugs is criminal in this context. But for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that offering cocaine might criminal. WP:BLPCRIME would guide us to avoid content that suggest acts are crimes (only you did, the article doesn't). It doesn't say we should not have articles of people who maybe did a crime. His notability is mainly about citizen journalism and law society investigations. If people who are notable for multiple things also maybe do a crime, does it mean we should delete articles about them? Let's focus on the key thing here: is he notable; does he meet WP:GNG. I think: yes. And also yes.
 * I see we may disagree on the relevance of BLPCRIME, and I suggest we sit with that disagreement and let others opine, I'm keen to avoid WP:BLUDGEON CT55555 (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - much as I loathed the trucker convoy. Hmm talk about a buried lede. One sentence and the references that follow it don't support it. Here's one good reference: There must be more, as I recognized the name. I see what part of the problem is: recent negative coverage -- gleeful, I would almost say. The convoy was really unpopular. and he's on Twitter. Looking deeper. might not be familiar, but it's a mainstream Vancouver outlet. I'm actually not finding much more without going to twitter, but those are definitely better than the ones that are there. Not voting because ick. Elinruby (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: In the context of the nomination referring to WP:BLP1E and that one event being his role around the Canada convoy protest, it seems important to mention that he was making news three days ago for unrelated reasons:
 * Embattled Ottawa lawyer James Bowie sued for sexual harassment CT55555 (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep. The argument that he might meet WP:GNG. the lawyer's activities are sufficiently covered and his contribution is noticeable not only at the local but also at the regional level. --Loewstisch (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2023 (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.