Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kali Bowyer


 * 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. I appreciate the effort that went into the article, but nonetheless it does not meet our usual criteria. This should not be interpreted as a judgment on the subject of the article, or the value of her work, just a statement about what we normally do and do not include as articles.  DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Kali Bowyer

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Puff piece on person whose sole claim to notability is filing a false paternatity suit. One event. Lacks significant coverage about Kali Bowyer. Jus a lot of associating with other but notability is not inherited. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Apparent attack page by someone intent on depicting subject's life as erratic and meaningless -- utterly devoid of worthy accomplishment. Not to mention that no one seems to care. EEng (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: G10 as attack page.   Ravenswing   05:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep *James mojo, after speaking with other on Wikipedia forums, it appears that you are harassing others for your own malicious satisfaction, as well as logging in under multiple names in order to back yourself up, which I have reported you as well. You also have a self-promotion page one yourself, which is against policy.
 * Keep I think you obviously have a personal issue with this individual; it clearly comes across in your wording, which is not reason for deleting ones Wikipedia page.

FACTS: NO false claim was NOT filed; Chris Rock in fact acknowledged and admitted his relationship with Bowyer. Bowyer has achieved and reached celebrity status within her work as a publicist, journalist and reality show. Her family legacy is that of Historic interest. Bowyer has been granted a federal court judgment, the largest in history, ever to be awarded to a publicist in the music industry. Bowyer has a solid impressive celebrity roster of clients within the entertainment industry, with her combination of news breaking stories to a movie being filmed about her life as we speak. She has earned the right to have a Wikipedia page written about her. I can continue if you would like. You James mojo have a personal vendetta and have been offered monetary compensation for your attempts to defame her, not including yourself promotional pages about your homeschool, yes we know who you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterPiperPickles (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC) — PeterPiperPickles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete nn promotional material more suited to the society gossip page of some local newspaper. And, no, don't continue. Taroaldo (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Puff piece, full of innuendo. Nothing in the article is cited beyond two statements in the lede. PeterPiperPickles is a WP:SPA, with few edits over the past year, which is his whole Wikipedia life, other than to this article. Claims about paternity are not only unsupported, but may be defamatory. This is a BLP nightmare. Bielle (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * *Keep What does BLP stand for? I am still learning here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterPiperPickles (talk • contribs) 22:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BLP consists of policy related to biographies of living persons. It can be reviewed by clicking on this link. And you have some edits going back to April 2010: that's ample time to have reviewed some of Wikipedia's core policies. Taroaldo (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP Sorry, I meant to provide the link when I first wrote. Please note that you are only permitted one vote. Any others will be indented and stricken through to assist the closing decision. Bielle (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep While the article may need work, it has lots of sources that seem to point to some noteworthieness. The reason for removing the picture is a reach as well and does seem to be an attack. However I hope to get some unbiased wiki editors with more experience than me --StarrBrock (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: StarrBrock is also Lbrock who has signed the preceding comment as StarrBrock. She also appears to be Kali herself, if the attribution on the photo is correct. I think we need to be aware of the potential for sockpuppets and WP:COI voting. Bielle (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Lbrock/StarrBrock: As pointed out just above, in permissions you added to the photo seen here you self-identify as the article's subject, Kali Bowyer. Please tell us whether (a) that is correct or (b) the permissions you added to the photo are false. Also, why are you altering your username in comments posted here?  EEng (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment So far as I am aware, in cases of multiple !voting, the actual !vote (keep or delete) is struck through, not the whole comment. The comment is struck when the user is shown to be banned or socking. Peridon (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The user expressed an intention to strike the comment here. The Bushranger just fixed up the user's botched attempt to do so. Deor (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

\
 * Note: I am not Kali Bowyer, I have been trying to help her, however her attempts at editing have convoluted my efforts. I am simply trying to help. I physically added the picture per the user request under CC which was later changed, by her. The nickname thing was separate and in no way meant to be sneaky, I had initially changed it  profile my prior to commenting  original nick, it made the link to my talk page dead so I corrected it, it is my actual name.

I would appreciate help from others as to what needs to happen to make the page more encyclopedic and less puff. I have instructed the subject to STOP trying to make changes, and to READ instructions freely available on wiki regarding how things work, I have also explained the nature of wiki is to inform, not promote. Loni (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I am extremely confused, someone was helping me and told me how to do strike-through In order that I can change what I said. I will be adjusting my statement this weekend as well, I had no time from work to do so yesterday. I have found several people who are being helpful and guiding me to instruction for wiki. It is a lot to learn, it takes one time to fully get this the hang of this. I think everyone had to start from the beginning here didn't they? --PeterPiperPickles (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterPiperPickles (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Off-topic query by PPP moved to User Talk:EEng


 * Strong Keep I have used Google news as one source, among other notable news sources such as Associated Press and TMZ, TV news, VH1, MTV, FOX, CBS, etc. The subject /page is notable and deserves to be seen by others, I seriously have no idea why one would even give thought to deletion of this article. It has been up for quite some time without complaint.

I would strongly suggest the individual who suggested deletion for this page read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP1E#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event. Subject is that of celebrity status, appearing on multiple networks TV shows, a published author, and makes weekly global and national headlines for her work, both charitable as well as professional. One might say why Paris Hilton has a page. Same rules would apply here, the good and the bad multimedia coverage, the reality shows, coming from historical family lineage, which is also sourced in not only newspapers but in historical registries as well. I would state in my opinion the reason for staring conversation to delete, comes from a personal issue that is clear in the wording used by the one who initiated this conversation. In addition I just noticed my question to a user was deleted by that user as well, in regards to why that users contributions are mostly deleting pages?--PeterPiperPickles (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @ PPP: how many times are you going to !vote here?? (It is one per customer, you know.) Taroaldo (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indented and struck second "keep" vote. (Forgot to sign) Bielle (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought because I stroke through the above 1st comment under the advice of another, I thought I had to put that back in with my revised comment in. Unaware I was to not, excuse my ignorance here, I am still learning. But thank you for clarify for me. I also assumed that each person had one vote so did not think it mattered just naturally would think think that was obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterPiperPickles (talk • contribs) 20:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment:
 * 1. If Lbrock/StarrBrock is not Kali Bowyer, then the photo in the article in which Kali Bowyer claims ownership of the photo but the upload was done by Lbrock, is a copyright problem. If the article stays and Kali wants to give permission, the there is an WP:OTRS procedure called Donating copyright materials for her to follow.

'':Indented line I have sent the Declaration of consent information to Bowyer with instructions. Hopefully this will sort the issue out with the picture. It was not intentional, I was simply helping her add her picture. I am off to do some happy editing on some very unrelated stubs! --22:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Loni (talk)''
 * 2. The two numbered footnotes that appear in the lede do not support that statements they accompany. Shannon Briggs isn't in the lede and the only Chris Rocks's article I could find on that site is about him wanting to have the case heard in Georgia.
 * 3. Outside of the lost paternity case and the judgement against Briggs (neither of which makes her notable in my assessment), in all the references I checked, Bowyer was mentioned only tangentially. There is just nothing significant here to support any article. (And while I might personally also ask "Why an article on Paris Hilton?", Bowyer is no Hilton. Bielle (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I thought because I stroke through the above 1st comment under the advice of another, I thought I had to put that back in with my revised comment in. Unaware I was to not, excuse my ignorance here, I am still learning. However, thank you for clarify for me. I also assumed that each person had one vote so did not think it mattered just naturally would think that was obvious. Everyone learns at different speeds. I have a disability so it takes me a bit longer than the norm. Also please note that someone just showed me how to sign after commenting, and I do not understand how to fix the strike through section on the Keep part. Helpful tips would be appreciated. I am working here with only one arm, so it is difficult to do a lot of things on here for me, thus I am still learning, I also use a voice activation and it does not pick up the codes. --PeterPiperPickles (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you have attempted to make four (4) keep !votes here, and this discussion is not constructive. If you are still learning, perhaps you should review Wikipedia policies before participating in complex processes. Thank you. Taroaldo (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I have only placed and attempted to place one 1 vote here NOT four 4, as I have stated above. I would think people here who have more knowledge would be a bit more helpful. --PeterPiperPickles (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We are tidying up around you and explaining what we have done and why. We are also doing our best to explain two key problems with the article: (a) Kali Bowyer is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and (b) even if she were notable, what has been written is mostly puffery, full of  peacock terms and (c) at best is only tangentially related to Bowyer and without in-line references (claims about her family home, and her client list, for example). If you can get consensus that the article is worth saving, that Bowyer is inherently notable or provably notable, then you can ask for more specific help and there will be lots available. At the moment, it doesn't look as if the decision will be Keep, but things do change. There is also the possibility that everyone commenting on Keep is either a  sock-puppet or a  meatpuppet and with  conflict-of-interest concerns at that. Bielle (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

How do I put in line references? Do not understand how she is not notable? She has been on several TV shows as a cast member, published books, etc. How is that not notable?--PeterPiperPickles (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bowyer's books (as found on lulu.com and to which I cannot link as it is a blacklisted site for WP) all appear to be self-published and without any reviews from reliable sources.  Not notable. Bielle (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Her books are also sold in book stores and on amazon. --PeterPiperPickles (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no independent reviews in reliable sources. That's the test of notability. Bielle (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A friendly (really!) note to PPP:
 * I know this can be an unwelcoming place, and tempers do run high when it's suspected that people are using Wikipedia for self-promotion -- it's like blood in the water for a shark. Don't worry about the argument about multiple keeps or whatever -- someone will sort that out, just put Comment on all your posts from now on, and end each post with ~ to sign it.
 * The problem with the article -- actually, the problem with KB as a subject for an article, is the apparent lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I've looked at a random subset of the links in the article, and none (of the ones I looked at) qualify.  For example, some links are about Rapper X, and the only thing they have to say about KB is something like, "'Rapper X is going on tour next year, as will four of the seven platinum-selling rap artists I handle,' said publicist KB." (I just made that up, of course.) That doesn't help KB's notability for a bunch of reasons: it's really not even about her (just mentions her), and it's not independent of her (it says she represents a lot of important rappers, but the reporter is just quoting her i.e. taking her word for it).
 * Being a cast member on a show doesn't count unless you can find a reference that has significant discussion of her as an actress on the show. Writing a book, or articles, doesn't count because that something she wrote -- what would count would be if there was significant discussion of her books or articles by others.
 * It's because almost all the sources seem to have these problems that, in my opinion, KB will probably be determined to be non-notable for Wikipedia purposes. But maybe you can convince us otherwise.
 * The way to do that is for you to first follow this link: WP:GNG; read it carefully. Then go over all the links and point out the ones that qualify under those guidelines (maybe break the list in the article into two separate lists).  If you're not sure about some of them, say so.  That will really make it easier on the rest of us.  Frankly, no one's gonna look at all those links in the article from beginning to end -- it's too many and after looking at five or six of them, it's too easy to decide that none of them qualify, and quit.
 * But again I need to warn you that I suspect in the end there won't be enough qualifying material too show that KB is notable. But at least you'll have done your best.  Good luck!
 * EEng (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If PPP requires tutoring, perhaps it could be done on his/her talk page. This is an AfD and it has already been bogged down in enough miscellany. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it would be best for all involved (esp. any admin considering closing) to see where things stand and what's going on. See my "note to admins" below. EEng (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I thank you for that info EEng, and I will sit and read this evening. I get tired too easily, so I will assume I have the weekend to work on this? How may I send to you when done to see if I am doing correctly EEng? Is there such a way? TO Taroaldo, as I said I am still learning so I am unaware of all the options, codes and sections to utilize. --PeterPiperPickles (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you just take the long list of sources that's in the article now and separate them into two groups. I've already provided special headings in the article under which you can group them.  This is not at all usual but if you'll work quickly in the next couple of days I don't think anyone will care EEng (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a nice idea but shouldn't be done on the live article, suggest working with categorization on the talk page if desired. —Eustress talk 23:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Note to admins: Given the confusion in this AfD, and the presence of one earnest editor (PeterPiperPickles) who has physical difficulty with the keyboard and wants to classify the sources for the rest of us, can we hold off on closing until PPP has had a few days to do that? EEng (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just got a msg on my talk from PPP saying he/she has started work on classifying the sources, which I had copied to Talk:Kali Bowyer to make this easier. I hope we can all wait until he/she is done before making a final decision (in fact, might be best to delay relisting until the classifying work is done), though I've warned more than once that I fear the outcome will, in the end, be delete.  But who knows? EEng (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay, I had physical therapy today. Here are some up to date sources I have: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/flacks_say_briggs_owes_big_BsLRqI241s21ZjCgL1dZdK http://www.tmz.com/2012/06/09/shannon-briggs-publicist-lawsuit-judgment/  http://www.islandpacket.com/2012/06/11/2098548/boxer-shannon-the-cannon-beaten.html  http://hiphopenquirer.com/hip-hop-publicist-receives-half-million-dollar-judgement-against-boxer-shannon-briggs/  http://www.xxlmag.com/lifestyle/2012/01/former-wags-of-celebrities-to-film-reality-tv-show/   http://blog.vh1.com/2011-08-31/famous-food-episode-9-the-sip-stick-that-broke-the-camels-back/   http://www.vh1.com/video/misc/686972/dj-paul-defends-juicy.jhtml#id=1670005   http://www.vh1.com/shows/famous_food/series.jhtml   http://studiostatesboro.statesboroherald.com/wednesday040908.html  http://hiphopenquirer.com/hip-hop-publicist-receives-half-million-dollar-judgement-against-boxer-shannon-briggs/   http://studiostatesboro.statesboroherald.com/vodcast.xml  I have found MANY more where Bowyer is the subject of both the tv shows, and news articles, not just by association. Does this help? --PeterPiperPickles (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC) http://studiostatesboro.statesboroherald.com/ http://studiostatesboro.statesboroherald.com/archives.html http://flaunt.com/issue-116 where a 2 pg interview was done on her and her career, she was the first publicist in the magazine's history ever to be interviewed in the magazine, next to Bob Dylan's interview never the less. http://studiostatesboro.statesboroherald.com/wednesday040908.html http://studiostatesboro.statesboroherald.com/wednesday040908.html an entire season of news and tv shows.--PeterPiperPickles (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC) http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/27279326/ns/today-books/t/chris-rock-court-over-unwritten-book/#.T-kjXLVSS8A --PeterPiperPickles (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PPP. I'll need overnight to look at these.  EEng (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you EEng! Also I have found hundreds more, but felt it was nuts to put them all here at once. I do appreciated all your help and guidance also. --PeterPiperPickles (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Rock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Briggs --PeterPiperPickles (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Over the past few days Bowyer has been all over in the news, tv, media for her connection with Rodney King and helping his family. I know that that she herself is not the subject of the main topic, but it does go to show what a "celebrity publicist" she is I would think that would count as well. --PeterPiperPickles (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to allow further discussion of the new sources.
 * — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean that everything above this line is being ignored? Bielle (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, earlier comments will still count: relisting is simply a way of trying to get more viewpoints. The closing editor should consider everything, but some earlier arguments may now be invalidated by new evidence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Considering the sheer amount of sources made available here, and the fact that the issue appears to be ongoing, the above delete !votes (which constitute the majority) may or may not be invalidated. It's up for the editors to discuss whether the subject passes the GNG, BLP, and so on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisting is a bit like 'bump' in forums - it keeps things active and moves it to the top of the list again. Peridon (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I have looked at many (but not all) of the new links. Ms Bowyer is good at getting her name out there. Any reporter would rather attach a quote to a person, even if the person is paid to produce the quotes, than to an unnamed source. In every case I read, the article was about someone else (usually Bowyer's client). I can't find the 2-page article in Flaunt magazine, even knowing the issue number; even if it were to be found, it would be the sole example of something about Boywer. I even went on personal search. Aside from some gossip rag about supposed past criminal activities, I found only more of the same. The TV show in which she was to have a significant part was cancelled in production. Her books have no reviews in reliable sources. And I don't think that being a guest on some local TV shows with your client's mother makes for notability either. Winning a judgement against a client for unpaid fees is also not notable, except to the participants. My vote, in case anyone is ever counting, remains, as above, as Delete. Bielle (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ATTENTION TO ALL PLS GIVE SOME MORE TIME I JUST LISTENED TO LIVE TV BROADCAST WHERE BOWYER WAS INTERVIEWED ALONG WITH THE PRODUCERS "The Wayans Bros." ARE PRODUCING THE REALITY SHOW THAT WAS CANCELLED THE OXYGEN NETWORK JUST PICKED UP THE SHOW AND THEY ARE MAKING FORMAL ANNOUNCEMENTS NEXT WEEK, SO SHE WILL BE A CAST MEMEBER ON A NETWORK TV SHOW, AS WELL AS JUST FILMED FOR ANOTHER NETWORK THEY DID A BIO SHOW ON HER AND HER LIFE. WILL BE POSTING LINKS AS THEY COME IN I WOULD THINK THAT IS THE TYPE OF THING EVERYONE IS LOOKING FOR. --PeterPiperPickles (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not SHOUT, PeterPiperPickles; it is annoying and unnecessary. A better approach, since there is little if anything in the two current crops of sources that would be usable, would be to close this as "Delete". PP, you can keep a copy somewhere else. I doubt that one TV show in production (and thus a single source for the article which is not independent) will be enough for notability. I would wait until the show is on air and there are third-party reviews before even attempting to re-do the article. Bielle (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Evaluation (by EEng) of sources listed by PPP
I offered to evaluate sources for PPP, and he/she listed them above and at User talk:EEng.

PPP: I very much apologize for the long delay -- I've had a personal emergency over the last 5 days. I spent much more time than I normally would have on this because I really have the feeling that you are here at Wikipedia to help make it better, and I didn't want you to end up feeling ill-treated. Unfortunately, after looking at every one of the sources you listed, my original opinion remains the same -- in fact it's stronger -- and that is: there's nowhere near the reliable, independent, significant coverage of KB that would be needed for there to be an article on her. I know this is disappointing to you, but please follow along with me below. I've rearranged and grouped the links you listed, but I think they're all still here.


 * First, one big problem is that when I checked many of the links, I couldn't find any mention of KB at all. These are:
 * http://blog.vh1.com/2011-08-31/famous-food-episode-9-the-sip-stick-that-broke-the-camels-back/
 * http://www.vh1.com/video/misc/686972/dj-paul-defends-juicy.jhtml#id=1670005
 * http://www.vh1.com/shows/famous_food/series.jhtml
 * http://hiphopenquirer.com/hip-hop-publicist-receives-half-million-dollar-judgement-against-boxer-shannon-briggs/
 * http://studiostatesboro.statesboroherald.com/wednesday040908.html
 * http://studiostatesboro.statesboroherald.com/wednesday040908.html
 * http://studiostatesboro.statesboroherald.com/wednesday040908.html
 * http://studiostatesboro.statesboroherald.com/vodcast.xml
 * http://studiostatesboro.statesboroherald.com/
 * http://studiostatesboro.statesboroherald.com/archives.html
 * Honestly, though, it wouldn't matter even if I could find the coverage of KB in those links. With one possible exception these are blogs, commercial promotional sites, and gossips sites. WP:RS (the policy on reliable sources) judges a reliable source according to its reputation for accuracy and fact-checking.  None of these sources could possibly qualify (one tipoff is when stories don't carry bylines by actual writers -- this is strong indicator that no one feels personally responsible for the accuracy of the story). The exception might be the Statesboro Herald, which from the name I'm guessing is related to a print newspaper and so might have something like traditional editorial oversight; but again, I can't locate where in these links KB is discussed. (I also tried the search feature of the stateboroherald site but no luck.)


 * These sources do mention KB, but unfortunately there are other problems as mentioned in italics:
 * http://flaunt.com/issue-116 (PPP said: "a 2 pg interview was done on her and her career, she was the first publicist in the magazine's history ever to be interviewed in the magazine, next to Bob Dylan's interview never the less.")  Can't find this interview -- tried searching via Google as well, also tried search box at flaunt.com; in any event interviews are of limited value for notability since in general they simply quote what the subject says in the interview with no editorial oversight of the accuracy of such statements
 * http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/flacks_say_briggs_owes_big_BsLRqI241s21ZjCgL1dZdK New York Post gossip page, not a reliable source, no significant coverage of KB
 * http://www.xxlmag.com/lifestyle/2012/01/former-wags-of-celebrities-to-film-reality-tv-show/   Promotion for future show, two sentences
 * http://www.tmz.com/2012/06/09/shannon-briggs-publicist-lawsuit-judgment/  Not a reliable source, and anyway just reports judgment for KB -- not significant coverage.
 * http://hiphopenquirer.com/hip-hop-publicist-receives-half-million-dollar-judgement-against-boxer-shannon-briggs/  Ditto above
 * http://www.islandpacket.com/2012/06/11/2098548/boxer-shannon-the-cannon-beaten.html  Says something about Bowyer but still far from significant, simply mentions where she lives, what she does for a living, default judgment
 * You also listed two wikipedia articles as sources. Unfortunately Wikipedia articles cannot use Wikipedia itself as a source.


 * There is one definitely reliable source:
 * http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/27279326/ns/today-books/t/chris-rock-court-over-unwritten-book/
 * This is also the only source coming anywhere near significant coverage, bur it still falls far short of notability -- describes at some length Roch's attempt to keep KB from publishing a certain book, but says little about her.

In summary there's almost nothing here on which an article could be based. This doesn't mean KB hasn't done things which, in principle, could be the basis of a perfectly good article, but if those things haven't received significant coverage in multiple indpendent sources, there can't be an article. Maybe in the future such sources will appear.

I hope the above doesn't seem too curt, and again I apologize for the delay. EEng (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

End of evaluation of PPP's sources
We now return you to our regularly scheduled broadcast, already in progress...
 * Comment Without having checked all the blogs, I'd say that the NY Post and Statesboro Herald come under reliable sources definition, but the Herald is very local in appearance (FULL MOON PADDLING at George L. Smith State Park is one item that caught my fancy). I agree with EEng's sorting and assessment of the sources, and get the impression that the subject is best known for a failed (but now disputed?) paternity suit and receiving a default judgement in another case. Suing for an unpaid bill is not of great note, leaving the paternity suit. This possibly brings in WP:BLP1E - notability for one event. Being a publicist for known people or organisations isn't of itself of note, until you get into the Max Clifford bracket. The clients might not have got anywhere without the publicist's work, but backroom work seldom gets publicity. Being an author of self-published books is rarely cause for note, even when listed on Amazon. Amazon will list almost anything. (Not being listed there is more significant, but not good...) I can't see this discussion closing yet, so there is some time left for work to be done. If it is closed, get new stuff together and ask one of us for an opinion before reposting. Saves time and wasted effort. Peridon (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2012 (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.