Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John 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 of the debate was Obvious Keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

John Bowker
No vote. This was prodded for five days, but I feel it requires consensus. Prod nomination was "vanity/nn: 1) dubious references to Mr Bowker have been deleted from other articles already (see discussion page for details)  2) "Dean" of Trinity College, Cambridge: There's a master of Trinity, who may well be notable. This "dean" story seems like an attempt to trick readers into believing Mr Bowker was a leading figure at Trinity. He was obviously not. 3) As other people have pointed out, there's thousands of people who may claim to have been 'consultants for UNESCO.'". For myself, I can add that the article has been around since 2003, and that enough editors have contributed to it to make its deletion necessarily controversial. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. He was the editor of the 1997 Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (I confirmed).  One doesn't get to that position casually.  I don't think we set a bad precedent by keeping this (and I say that as someone who proposed a bio for deletion and found that being published in a major Spanish magazine seemed to be sufficient to keep one's bio in wikipedia). John Broughton 01:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. All his credentials seem real. He is probably also an Anglican priest, but I can't confirm that. His scholarly work seems enough to make him notable. I would just like to fill in some missing details such as his date of birth and the academic degrees that he earned (as well as where and when he earned them. TruthbringerToronto 01:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep unless I'm reading this wrong I can see a [number] of amazon hits. Article may not be correct but he seems sufficiently notable - Peripitus (Talk) 01:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment can we have some sources to verify the other stuff? Yanksox (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I cannot find John Bowker in the directories of either university he is supposed to be teaching at. Book credits seem accurate, and the author seems to be the same as the article though.  Request a second directory check at the universities, please?  Tychocat 02:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as the sources back up his authorship list. "BBC broadcaster" seems a bit dubious though, can't find any mention of him from the BBC.  Rockpock e  t  03:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Further investigation reveals he probably offered comment, along with many many other religious experts, on some segment of the BBC’s "World of Faith Week" in October 2004. Hardly backs up claims as a "BBC broadcaster" i would have thought (otherwise i'm updating my CV).  Rockpock e  t  03:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep given all those credentials, notable person though the article needs expanding. --WinHunter (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Fairly obviously notable person. Easily more notable than average professor. Beaner1 05:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, per above. --Coredesat 06:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if verifiable information about notability discussed above is added; Delete otherwise. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Robertsteadman 09:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. I don't quite understand the comment, in the nomination, about the dean of chapel not being important. The dean of any Oxbridge college is usually notable (not by virtue of that position, but due to the sort of people who are appointed). The dean of a college is important, and the Trinity page even lists the Dean's of the College. --Wisd e n17 13:32, 19 June 2006 (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.