Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Bowie


 * 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. Sockpuppetry notwithstanding, there is insufficient evidence of notability per WP:EVENT and WP:BIO. --RL0919 (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Michele Bowie

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Additionally, although a courageous story, it appears this is notability per a single local event article.  ttonyb (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

--Shiasp101 (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Sticking to just the technical elements, the story meets as much of the notability criteria as does one on say a name like "Justin Barker" who is part of the Jena Six story line. Unlike a leaked or unsourced story, this one has court cases and dates and actual verbiage written and signed by a seated Judge and Clerk. Easily verified. Also, the Biography itself is verifiable through Univ registra & SOS. Further, this story seems to meet all the general criteria fitting that of a biography of a living person; And is the same as that of other people of little known fact and historic or precedence setting. Therefore it meets the standards and should not be deleted. — Shiasp101 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Removed sockpuppet vote!  ttonyb (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – The existence of another article has no bearing on this article. Each article must stand on its own merits - see WP:WAX.  This is an article authored by the subject of the event.  It is a story of a local event that lacks any far-reaching consequences.  Granted it is about a vile event, but the article lacks secondary support to validate the story.  Specifically, the article fails to meet the criteria in WP:BIO using reliable secondary sources. ttonyb  (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

--Ari4eva (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)I think this story is more than courageous because it is what the American spirit is all about. Whereas it transcends color by being a voice for the voiceless, it validates the perseverance of people of color. Importantly, it also highlights the social struggles that still exist between blacks and whites; that invisible, un-crossable line. Moreover, there is the opportunity for unique case study in precedence. It’s extraordinary that the case section is written in a way that presents impact of racism, due process, and outcomes for both parties. I think that both are fairly represented. The links show sequentially the events actually happened! I was blown away to see the actual court documented writings! And the “N” word should be linked to this story as a category of ref because the story offers much insight into behavior and actions of people.

In any case, Wikipedia seems to have many “Michele Bowie” noteworthy biographies. I don't know what obstacles she's had to endure, but it takes a strong person to handle such a situation the way she did. So maybe aspects of her life and education touch on many areas that should be linked to stories like Nat Love. Although, his is an autobiography, which from what I gathered is frowned heavily upon by Wikipedia guidelines. Comparatively, the Nat Love's story (though courageous & commendable) is less verifiable. So no, the Michele Bowie story should not be deleted. In fact, this is the kind of story someone should pass on to CNN. — Ari4eva (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Removed sockpuppet vote!  ttonyb (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – The existence of another article has no bearing on this article. Each article must stand on its own merits - see WP:WAX.  This is an article authored by the subject of the event.  It is a story of a local event that lacks any far-reaching consequences.  Granted it is about a vile event, but the article lacks secondary support to validate the story.  Specifically, the article fails to meet the criteria in WP:BIO using reliable secondary sources. ttonyb  (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

--LTD1959 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)This biography shows how intellect and the system was used to deal with racism. Sheds more insight on the black/white relationship, closed minds, and the way the "N" word is used in anger. So, it should not be deleted. — LTD195 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Removed sockpuppet vote!  ttonyb (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – The existence of another article has no bearing on this article. Each article must stand on its own merits - see WP:WAX.  This is an article authored by the subject of the event.  It is a story of a local event that lacks any far-reaching consequences.  Granted it is about a vile event, but the article lacks secondary support to validate the story.  Specifically, the article fails to meet the criteria in WP:BIO using reliable secondary sources. ttonyb  (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

 InformationWare (talk)  20:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I respectfully request that you do not remove Michele Bowie's Article. The Article is factually based upon her personal experiences. The experiences referenced in the article will be inspirational and therapeutic to others who have had similar encounters. More importantly, Michelle Bowie touched upon a topic that needs open and honest discussion. We have made tremendous progress in America regarding race relations through an open display of racial displeasures or racial encouragements. In order to gain our country’s ultimate goal of racial utopia, we can never suppress conversations geared towards reaching that goal. Unfortunately, the N-Word and its impact need to be at or near the forefront when having the aforementioned discussion.
 * Comment – Not to be harsh, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not intended to be an inspirational or therapeutic website. Perhaps a personal website is a better place for this article.
 * Articles must meet criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia using reliable sources. Specifically, this article fails to meet the criteria in WP:BIO.  None of your comments provide support for the inclusion of the article in Wikipedia.  Unless criteria is provided it is likely it will be removed.   ttonyb  (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Overlooking that the article is bloated with unreferenced resume material and is written as what appears to be a personal account; I can see nothing that justifies its inclusion (and components may be considered libellous if there is material stated that has not been tested in court). In a global context it is about someone being charged under state legislation in the US (which occurs all the time).  The case was brought by the state, not Michelle, and she appears to have little role apart from being the original complainant.  I see no evidence of notability. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This does not pass WP:BIO and firmly falls under WP:ONEVENT.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

--Latchat (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Do Not Delete I live in GA. I saw this on the Internet and thought no way! I found a Michele Bowie in the Online Secretary of State Business Records that owns a company called PCI since 1998. Called the superior court to find out about the case. Guess what? It happened. The guy got three years for what she said! I didn't believe it. But it happened. The Grand Jury really handed down an indictment for this. That's amazing! And completely notable & noteworthy all on its own! To me this whole thing is simple, you have the names and case numbers. Do what I did: google the state and superior courts. But beware, they're probably swamped with calls on this one.
 * 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.