Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Leon Cowden


 * 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'm sorry 212dream but despite your spirited defense of this article, the consensus here is that he's not notable yet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Leon Cowden

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Cannot find multiple WP:RS that give in depth (or any depth) coverage of this subject or his one book. Unsourced claims that Cowden's band ("Fragile Human Organs") "achieved cult status with their vast internet following", among others. Doesn't pass WP:BASIC, WP:ARTIST or WP:AUTHOR. Two similar accounts engaged in promoting Cowden: and. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think deletion is a bit harsh, simply abbreviate the middle name and page after page after page after page of information pops up, including "google books" which you previously searched, Amazon, the individual himself, the publishing company, countless reviews and many others, in regards to the authors "one" book, which seems to be cited as possibly one of the most important books ever written on this topic. There's certainly no lack of information on the subject. The same can be said for the film and tv section. Granted, I am fairly new at contributing and there's probably holes in the music section but I certainly think deleting the whole article is a bit much. Sounds a bit personal and not very understanding of the newbies. Isn't there a rule about that too? Remove the section that isn't verifiable in regards to wiki's terms, ie "the music" or I'll work on it myself, but there's no problem finding information about the individual, the book, or the film and tv work.

Submitted for your approval: Google Search Google Books Spirit Voices Search The Actual Book from the publishing company's website IMDB Page verifying all of the film and tv titles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212dream (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, notability is not shown by the amount of google hits that a name or phrase has, nor can notability be shown by an IMDb page or by a publisher page. That might show that a book exists or that Cowden has done things, but merely publishing a book, making a film, or being a musician (or any of the other things in the article) does not in itself guarantee notability. We need reliable sources from uninvolved third parties that pass WP:RS. None of the links you have given us pass those guidelines. I'll see what I can find, but I would recommend that you read over WP:RS, WP:GHITS, WP:IMDB, and WP:PRIMARY.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. While he might have done quite a bit, none of his accomplishments translated into what Wikipedia would consider to be notability. There are no reliable and independent sources to show that Cowden is notable and as it is, the article pretty much puffs up the fact that Cowden has ultimately played in a band that (at least while he was in it) did not meet the notability guidelines for WP:BAND (and even if it did or currently does, notability is not inherited to its members), directed a bunch of featurettes that again, did not inherit any notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) from being a featurette of a notable movie or being around notable people, and his book has not gotten any attention that would help it pass WP:NBOOK. Again, being in or around a group/movie/etc that has notability does not grant automatic notability to anyone. You must show independent and reliable sources that discuss the subject at length (in this case, Mr. Cowden), which the article lacks. Primary and trivial sources can never show notability, nor can database listings that merely have a list of things that an actor/director/musician/author has done. At the most they can back up trivial facts, but they can and will never show notability. Not to sound rude, but having a dozen sources does not accomplish anything if they don't show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanispamcruftisement. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing satisfying WP:BAND, WP:NBOOK, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ENT. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

(Definition of 'reliable source' The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.) Publisher Review and Interview Book Chart Info Nick Redfern's (best selling author on the subject matter) Review of the book I'm not getting it, I've looked at the guidelines for a reliable source, as stated above. How can the publisher not be a reliable source? I have the book myself. How can the "piece of work" not be a reliable source? I've left links to radio interviews, (the writer himself) In many articles that I have read, it's the notable piece of work that triggers the article, but then people are interested in the back story which led up to the meat of the article. This back story almost always comes from record companies, publishers, etc. etc. I could write an article purely about the book, which is historic in this field. I've read it, I've seen the footage along with millions of other people on television, it is relevant, notable and ground breaking in this field and reliably sourcing the book is not a problem by the above guidelines, therefor, deleting the whole article, I believe, is against wiki guidelines, unless it really is an organisation for the elite few. I have read similar articles, most always have an "early life" section in addition to the piece of work that actually makes the article notable, and that back story very rarely comes from published scientific papers, scholar search engines, etc. It comes from biographies originating from the publishers, the record companies, etc. who are in an authoritative position to issue this kind of information.
 * Edit. The book, with an ISBN, registered at the Library of Congress, and the historic accomplishments detailed in the book, also aired to millions of people via the BBC, is the notability.  The rest is back story on the individual which many people such as myself, who have read the book and seen the footage, may be interested in.

So, I suppose, I am new to this and I compiled this article based more on other articles that I've read on wiki, rather than the actual guidelines in regards to "early life". So, I will author an article, purely on the book, which can be reliably sourced in accordance to your own guidelines above, I'll keep it brief, and later down the line, perhaps one of your "pre-approved" authors can fill in the blanks to the back story on the individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212dream (talk • contribs) 09:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not how notability works on Wikipedia. To show that a book is notable, you have to show reliable sources that are not primary. In other words, you have to show a source that isn't the book or anything that Cowden, his publisher, or anyone involved with him has released. The policy for this is covered under WP:PRIMARY. None of Cowden's movies, books, or music will ever be usable as a source to back up notability. Let me use an example of this: none of Dan Brown's books can be used to show notability for him, although articles about the books and his work can be used to show notability. Brown's publisher cannot be used as a reliable source because they are affiliated with him and there's no way to guarantee the reliability of anything they say. They could say that like Chuck Norris, his tears can cure cancer because they don't have to verify or back anything up. They stand to gain by making him look as good as possible. Does this mean that the average publisher will out and out lie or overly fabricate things about their authors? No, not generally, but the fact still remains that publishing information is seen as a primary source at best and generally speaking, using primary sources to even back up trivial references is frowned upon. The only time you should be using a primary source is when you have reliable sources to back it up, meaning that you should have so many reliable, independent, third-party sources that using a primary source is unnecessary. As far as creating an article on the book, I'd wait to do that, to be honest. The only source that looks like it could be used out of all of the ones you've posted is the review by Redfern. The Gralien Report link is not usable as a reliable source, nor is the publisher's link or the link to the book info. It doesn't matter how long GR has been around or how respected they are as a source within their community, it's not considered to be a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines. I can pretty much guarantee that with the sources you've currently provided, the article will be deleted, especially since Cowden's AfD has been posted. I'm not trying to be mean by saying that, just stating the unfortunate fact of life on Wikipedia. The only reason there are unsourced or poorly sourced articles about non-notable people/places/items is because nobody has put them up for AfD yet. I'd really recommend that if you want to create an article about the book, that you work on it in your user space first and run it through the WP:AFC process first. I also recommend that you look through WP:NBOOK as well. Again, I'm saying this in order to save you from going through all of the work to create an article in the mainspace about a book, only for it to later be deleted due to a lack of reliable sources. I've seen more visible books deleted due to a lack of sources, and that's with people trying to save the articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To put it more bluntly, there are incredibly few things on Wikipedia that would be considered notable to where you could remove all of the sources and it wouldn't be deleted. Items of that level of notability are things like the works of Edgar Allan Poe, the Quran, or someone along the lines of Abraham Lincoln. It has to be someone or something so notable that you could pretty much go up to the average person on the street and they'd have heard about it. I'd go as far as to say that less than 1% of anything on here has that level of notability. In other words, neither Cowden or any of his works have that notability, nor are they likely to. This isn't a slam against Cowden, just a fact of Wikipedia life. If it makes it any easier to take, Angelina Jolie also lacks this notability, as does the show Jersey Shore.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Further I do understand what you are saying, and your comment has probably been the most helpful and understandable. I don't however, understand the point of an encyclopedia which only allows information that the average person on the street already knows. A topic such as paranormal research and electronic voice phenomenon, are topics that the average person on the street won't know anything about, hence an encyclopedia, though they are topics of importance that many people research to find more information about. A topic such as this also tends to only include historic information. So, when an exciting new advancement happens, books and television shows are made about it, people start talking about it, known people in authoritative positions start reviewing it and writing about it, is it not important for it to be updated within these topics in some shape or form? Regardless of whether or not the biographical information on the Cowden article can stand in whole in regards to wiki's terms and conditions, which from what I have seen very few articles in regards to musicians or filmmakers do, wiping the whole thing, especially the book, the occurrences that the book documents and the comments and articles written by people in authoritative positions within that field, many of which are in other books and magazines (not printed online), seems reckless while defying the whole point of an outlet such as this. Even if it's just a couple of sentences within a paranormal article, an electronic voice phenomenon article, or something similar. Is it not also the duty of the administrators to allow a user to at least update an existing article with this new advancement, this new information, which can at the very least be verified in that context, rather than wiping all trace of it off of the network because the average Joe on the street, hasn't heard about it? Is Redfern's article not enough to have a sentence about this advancement, added into a paranormal or electronic voice phenomenon article? Does its listing and review from the Society for Psychical Research who are also authoritative on this topic and recognized by their wiki page, not give some merit for this book to be included at least within a paranormal or electronic voice phenomenon article? I think at the very least I have demonstrated enough sources, reviews, and articles from authoritative and wiki recognized resources to include the existence of this book as an advancement in the research of paranormal phenomena and/or electronic voice phenomenon. If I were to write an article on this book, or at least update an existing article on this topic, citing the resources, reviews and wiki pages that I have used above, recognizing this book and its author as an update into the research of this field, as a book that has been released, or an author in this field, based on what I've presented, I can't for the life of me see why it would be deleted. I can now understand the original argument for the original page, but I can't understand the "we're not going to let you write about this book or this individual, not even a couple of sentences to update an existing article" stance when even wikipedia recognizes many of the sources used to verify the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212dream (talk • contribs) 13:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... when I was discussing the average knowledge of random people on the street, I was saying that in regards to the idea of adding things to an article without a reliable source. The only time you can add something to Wikipedia without any sort of reliable source is when it's something that's so obviously true that you don't really need sourcing. These sorts of additions are incredibly rare as there's very, very few things out there that are so universally known, proven, and recognized that you don't need some sort of sourcing to back up your claims. This just isn't here when it comes to Cowden's work, which is why it wouldn't really work for it to be added to articles on Wikipedia. The sources just aren't there. As far as you writing an article, journal, or book on Cowden, it would really depend on your qualifications and where/how you published it. For example, if you were a recognized authority in the matter and published it through a recognized source (like the New York Times or The Sentinel), then this would be usable as a source. If you published a blog or self-published a book, then it wouldn't be usable as a source. Also unusable are articles published through sources that allow any user to post an article or journal, such as the Examiner website or the opinion page of a paper. The point of all of this is that you can't just create an article or source and have it count as a reliable source that shows notability. It has to pass through WP:RS, which is why it's sometimes so frustrating when you have something that might be visible within a niche but lacks the sources to show that it passes notability guidelines. Even if it's just to add Cowden's name to another page, you MUST have a reliable source to back these claims up and you can't use the book or any tv show recordings that Cowden has done or was involved in to prove it. You'd also have to prove that Cowden's contact through EVP was especially notable. Cowden claims that this was the first live recording through EVP, yet [this article http://www.spr.ac.uk/main/publication/spirit-voices-first-live-conversation-between-worlds] that is linked in the article refutes this claim by saying that technically there are two other people who could lay claim to this, Father Gemelli and George Meek. You'd need to prove that this really was a notable first, which is one of the problems we're running into as far as Cowden's article goes: a lack of sources that Wikipedia would consider to be reliable. That's why it's probably a better idea for you to work on it in your userspace and work towards finding sources that are reliable per Wikipedia's standards. I know it's frustrating and I've had articles that have never made it to the mainspace due to lack of sources, but that's what is required. It's especially frustrating since the paranormal is a part of science (and I do consider it to be science) that is at best ignored or at worst looked down upon unless it contains sparkling vampires or guys strapping ghost busting gear on their backs. (In other words, most of what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources generally only cover paranormal in fiction or the incredibly mainstream stuff like Ghost Hunters. Again, I do think that you should keep working on it, but in your userspace. I also encourage you to check out WikiProject Paranormal, a group on Wikipedia whose purpose is to flesh out paranormal articles. They can help you out as far as helping to find reliable sources, but you might also want to join so you can help with other things that need doing as far as that group goes.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - As others have pointed out, we don't see clear evidence of notability in any of the fields the guy is involved in.  It is perhaps also worth noting that this article was created by User:321stop - and almost all of the non-trivial editing of this article are from accounts User:321stop and the similarly named: User:212dream - and also User:82.7.114.193 and User:194.168.255.76 - all of whom have had no activity on Wikipedia whatever except to edit this article and others where Cowden is mentioned.  So, User:212dream - would you care to confirm that none of these other accounts are your WP:SOCKS and that you have no conflict of interest to admit here?  SteveBaker (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree he does not appear to be notable and his page will probably be deleted, but in the field of EVP I think he is notable, so perhaps we could have a line about his research on the Electronic voice phenomena article. GreenUniverse (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps - but that's a matter for the talk page of that article. I don't think we should rule on that as a part of this AfD. SteveBaker (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any merge-worthy content. All ghost hunting TV shows claim at one time or another to have documented contact with spirits. The episode of "Northern Ireland's Greatest Haunts" that Crowden made his alleged spirit contact breakthrough on has not been given notability by objective sources that are independent of the subject (TV network promotions, TV program listings and imdb entries don't count). The only ones claiming Crowden's book represents an "advancement in the research of paranormal phenomena and/or electronic voice phenomenon" are Crowden, his print-on-demand publisher, and perhaps an obscure paranormal-themed blog or two. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Now, I don't want to go into TLDR territory but... there are a lot of borderline-notable articles on fringe topics which end up at AfD sooner or later. Lately I've come to the conclusion that the problem isn't notability; it's one of neutrality. When there's only a small number of sources on a topic and they're all in-universe, then it becomes impossible to describe the topic neutrally; and deletion may be the best solution if it's already pretty low on notability. I realise some folk would frame that as a content problem - hence a "keep" !vote - but then we're left with flawed content sitting around indefinitely which we know doesn't fit the mainstream view but we can't get mainstream sources to fix it. Surely that's not the best outcome for the encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 11:39, 18 May 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.