Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Bowen (third nomination)


 * 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, discounting unexplained votes. Jaranda wat's sup 04:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Bowen (third nomination)

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

The topic of the article, Kevin Bowen, fails all the necessary notability requirements for inclusions. The article nor the subject meet WP:BIO. I have gone through before and shown that the topic fails to meet any of the necessary points for inclusion. Most notably no one has written about Kevin Bowen, especially not in the form of a source which meet WP:RS. Please see the talk page for the discssion. Fails WP:BIO, non-notable. -- Quirex 07:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems clear cut, let's delete it. --Afed 07:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think the guy is hilarious, but policy is policy.--Drat (Talk) 07:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Kuralyov 14:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? --Afed 14:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 04:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Previous deletion discussions: first - keep, second - keep) Flyingtoaster1337 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete not very notable per WP:BIO. Flyingtoaster1337 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete(somewhat sadly) I voted keep on the first debate way back in early 2005, but our verifiability/reliable-sources requirements have really tightened up since then. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As said above, not very notable. Trubadurix 21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with SomethingAwful BovineBeast 21:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep unless something significant has changed since last two debates Has anything about the article significantly changed since the previous two debates? If not, I'd recommend Keep on procedural grounds since the last two debates resulted in Keep results per the admins.  These afd discussions have to have some sort of closure to be meaningful.  So unless something has significantly changed since the last two debates, this should be kept. Dugwiki 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - As starblind pointed out the policies have changed (WP:BIO) and the second afd seemed to be considered a bad faith nomination. I've gone through each point of WP:BIO and shown that Kevin Bowen fails every notability requirement. Do you have a policy based reason to keep the article? --Quirex 21:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It sounds a bit like sour grapes to me on the part of the nominator. Notable. Dwain 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. How is he notable what part of WP:BIO does he meet to make him notable? --Quirex 16:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 04:02, 26 January 2007 (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.