Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Bowden


 * 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   Speedy Deleted as a G7 Author Request. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm Bowden

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Very obscure British creationist. Little or no third-party coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree, there is much third-party coverage.


 * Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2010, p. 255
 * Article in the ThirdWay Magazine Dec 1982 - Jan 1983
 * Malcolm Bowden, The Rise of the Evolution Fraud, 1982, p. 87 italics his
 * Hugh Ross, More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation, 2009, p. 290
 * Malcolm Bowden "APE-MEN: FACT OR FALLACY?" 2nd enlarged edition, 3rd reprint ISBN 0950604216
 * http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j03_1/j03_1_152-153.pdf
 * http://www.bmj.com/content/1/6175/1407.extract
 * http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sheets.html
 * Newspaper article in ThirdWay Feb 9, 1978
 * Profile at http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/MalcolmBowden


 * You have also reverted edits at the Creation Science Movement homepage - Saying "trivia that lacks third-party sourcing and really doesn't belong in the lead or anywhere else really" - Trivia? Doesn't belong anywhere on the article - Malcolm Bowden is a speaker at the Creation Science Movement - How does he not belong on the article?


 * You need to read up on WP:NPOV


 * You have also been inappropriately tagging other articles such as David Rosevear (Chairman of the CMS) and Monty White another creationist, when all these pages have reliable third person sources such as from the New Scientist Magazine or from interviews with the British Broadcasting Corporation. You have also been deleting Bowden's name link from other articles such as Duane Gish, it must be pointed out that Gish wrote a forword to one of Bowden's books, i would not call Bowden obscure. Searching through Google Books would also show many other creationists who have quoted from Bowden's popular book Ape men:Fact or Fallacy Liveintheforests (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Johnson, Bowden himself, Ross, creation.com are all affiliated (creationist) sources and of questionable reliability. Both www.talkorigins.org & www.bcseweb.org.uk routinely provide information on quite obscure creationists, and creationist claims, so hardly add to notability. It is unclear what level of coverage Third Way Magazine & BMJ provide, but there's no indication that it is substantial. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you go down the route you are going, we may aswell just delete 90% of the articles for the Bios of Young Earth Creationists then. Becuase other than talk.origins, bcse or creationist sources - other sources do not exist (and you know they don't) - For Bowden and the other related articles its good that we even have BBC interviews and reviews in the New Scientist magazine. I personally do not recommend going down the route in deleting them, i can't comment here anymore i will be accused of WP:NPOV myself. Get other eyes into this. Liveintheforests (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As with any WP:FRINGE viewpoint, generally only a small minority of its proponents are notable. That's nothing new. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Little or no third party coverage. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Little or no third party coverage? Are you sure you have even looked at the references?. Ok Firstly:


 * There are two Newspaper articles from the Thirdway magazine which mention Bowden and a review for one of his books.
 * There is a review from a medical practice paper which has reviewed Bowden's book Ape men fact or fallacy? and his beliefs about the piltdown man.
 * We have a review of Bowden and one of his books and his beliefs regarding evolution from the talk.orgins website (talk.orgins) is an anti-creationist website, which is referenced all over wikipedia. So this reference can not be claimed as "pushing WP:FRINGE".
 * We have a profile of Bowden, his profession as an engineer, his books, beliefs etc from the bsce (again a source which is anti-creationist - infact the source even labels Bowden a "crackpot") The bsce website is all over wikipedia and has been used in many articles as a reference.
 * We have Bowden's Home website and book listed with an ISBN
 * There is also a profile for Bowden at the Creation Science Movement website
 * Two others sources include books from Philip E Johnson and Hugh Ross - Two scientists.
 * Just to also point out there are a number of books which also mention Bowden on Google books, they can be further references
 * Third party reliable sources clearly has been passed in my opinion, there needs to be other eyes on this, and a vote. There are 13 current references for Bowden on his article page (i can put up atleast 4 more), it must be pointed out that there are far more references on the Bowden article than most other Creationist articles for Creationists at wikipedia, i have seen some Creationist articles with less than 6 references. - If Bowden is deleted perhaps the others should go aswell? Liveintheforests (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Philip E. Johnson a "scientist"? What WP:Complete bollocks! Hugh Ross is hardly a WP:RS either. Also the BMJ piece appears to be a letter to the editor, or similar reader-submission, not a "review". Also please look up the definition of "third party source" -- Bowden's website & book, and the Creation Science Movement website are NOT third party. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with the delete, the user Hrafn has deleted all of the material of Bowden and refuses to put it on the Creation Science Movement article, he has also been deleting other material from other Creationist articles such as from David Rosevear and Monty White and many others when those articles are well sourced from third party sources such as from BBC interviews or from the NewScientist magazine, this user is not neutral on Creationism or Evolution wikipedia articles, he has broken WP:NPOV. Liveintheforests (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The same user on the Talk:Creation Science Movement has claimed both the Malcolm Bowden and the David Rosevear article are not well sourced and contain self-published material. It must be noted that adding both the articles together (if we want to merge them to the Creation Science Movement article) we have references from, BBC articles (two interviews), a British medical journal, talk.origins, bsce, newscientist magazine and two Thirdway magazine articles - How are any of these sources WP:SELFPUB ? Liveintheforests (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2011 (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.