Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Edward Bowen


 * 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. Earlier versions of this article are a copyvio of, and little has been done to rewrite the article to conform with our policy on biographies of living people. Whether or not he passes the threshold required for WP:Notability (people) is yet to be determined; the people commenting on this AFD have not provided persuasive opinions based on policy. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

James Edward Bowen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

probably not encyclopedic... altought the reference list is long (not all links are pertinent) Melaen (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep It seems Bowen is noted in a variety of sources and accomplished across industry and academia. Reference list can be edited. Peter Graham (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Graham234 (talk • contribs)  — Peter Graham234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep I don't see problem, perhaps it needs to be edited somewhat. George Luke (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.110.88 (talk • contribs)  — 70.26.110.88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - Agree, no reason for deletion as of now.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with BabbaQ.-- ChuckT (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.25.84 (talk • contribs)  — 70.26.25.84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * So I edited it and did the wiki links, looks good :) -- OnRedBll (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.25.84 (talk • contribs)
 * I edited the reference list --OnRedBll (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.25.84 (talk • contribs)
 * 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.