Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Bowen


 * 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 no consensus. slakr \ talk / 02:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Bowen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This individual is not notable. The article appears to be self promotion. The edit history and users involved suggest a conflict of interest and non neutral point of view re Horison Community College. isfutile:P (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. While it is certainly true that the user who added Bowen's current affiliation to Horizon Community College, in a couple of five word sentences also edited the college's page, and may indeed be surmised to be have, shall we say, some affiliation, it is not true that the article is non-neutral about his involvement.  Indeed the editor concerned added negative news citations to the college page.
 * Certainly I have never met Bowen, and am not his alter-ego, as the couple of hundred editors who have met me in the flesh can testify.
 * Bowen was awarded a significant award, and has a documented history of innovating for enterprise, specifically, but not exclusively, young enterprise.
 * He easily passes WP:GNG on this basis.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC).


 * delete. Of the two refs one is to his own institution, so not a reliable third party one, while the other mentions him only in passing. So no in-depth coverage in a reliable source, never mind the multiple sources required for GNG. Secondary school academics are rarely notable and usually require exceptional evidence, such as winning a national award. The Queen's Awards for Enterprise is award to over a hundred people or organisations every year, and is hardly grounds for notability.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Queens Award for Enterprise Innovation is awarded to about 7 or 8 people per year. Unlike the Queens Award to Industry, which is awarded to organisations, it is awarded to people.  Moreover it is an award for "good works" benefiting others, rather than for (possibly enlightened) self interest.
 * Please note nominator had eviscerated the references from this article before nominating and removed the main claim to notability from the lead. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC).


 * I had a look at the version immediately before nomination and it makes no difference; the additional references are both first party ones to official coverage of the award, not reliable third party ones. And there are over a hundred awards under the Queen's Award every year. The one third party ref, to a local paper, lists seven alone in this part of the country. And a brief mention in a local paper is not enough for GNG.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (talk)  09:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems that, for quite some time now, User:Rich Farmbrough has set himself the task of creating articles for each and every recipient of the Queen's Enterprise Award.  For most of them, it is difficult to see how they ever would have gotten articles were it not for the award and, accordingly, the merits of a stand-alone article should be judged under the guidelines for "single-event" notability.  This point is a lot clearer if we look at the articles for some of the other 2010 recipients -- Timothy Allan, Simon Denny (professor), Murdoch MacLeod, or Kenneth Nelson (businessman).  Mr. Farmbrough, may I make a suggestion?  How about creating an article for each year's crop of recipients, such as "Queen's Enterprise Promotion Award 2010"?  I doubt that anyone would object to such an article and it would be the perfect place to host a brief biography of each recipient.  The individual articles could remain as re-directs to the overall article for the particular year.  What do you think?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is actually an approach I favour for marginally notable subjects, in some cases.
 * There are two issues with articles about awardees of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion, firstly our coverage of business is terribly lacking, and its worth creating these stubs to see if they can become articles, and secondly many of these people (like most of our article subjects) have more to their biography than simply winning an award (as might be the case with a typical lottery winner). In this case Bowen might equally belong in Horizon Community College or St Benet Biscop Catholic High School.
 * Finally there is the risk of someone getting the parent article deleted on spurious grounds, such as naming - this has happened to about 20 QE articles.
 * If you wish to expand Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion (2010) into a list article, though, I certainly would have no objection.
 * Note in this example the number of refs has been increased from 2 to 11 since nomination.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Re "our coverage of business is terribly lacking", our covering of businesspeople like anything else depends on the depths of coverage in reliable sources.   There is no shortage of press coverage of modern business and businesspeople; general newspapers produce reams of it daily, while specialist business publications go into more depth and have wider coverage. And it is almost all online; even if paywalled it is indexed and searchable. So no, it’s not lacking by missing people like Nicholas Bowen; by our standards he is not notable, as there are no reliable secondary sources with in-depth coverage of him.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs more discussion, because the "Keep" votes don't appear to be grounded in policy Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- While the coverage of him isn't immense, it appears enough to count as "significant coverage" in reliable sources. A borderline case, but I believe it's enough to me. Jujutacular (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which reliable source are you looking at, that has significant coverage? I could see only trivial coverage, nothing that covers him in any depth among the secondary sources.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Definitely seems to meet significant coverage criteria, and Rich's arguments about business coverage is absolutely true: these are more than "simple biased awards", the are fairly significant recognitions of the contribution to these business communities, Sadads (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Recipient of Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion and hence passes WP:BIO (point 1). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  07:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: I probably don't think a relist is necessary as Recipient of Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion is a clear pass of WP:ANYBIO. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion. I acknowledge that receipt of the Queen's award confers some notability, but WP:BIO is not the only guideline we should be looking to.  I have in mind something more like WP:BLP1E or WP:NOPAGE.  Consider what this article would look like if we removed mention of the Queen's award.  Would there still be a serious debate over the notability of the subject?  Perhaps some of the "keep" voters would say "yes", but what exactly would they point to?  We are told, for example, that the subject was involved in an enterprise intended to "incubate students' ideas".  But in the entire history of humanity, hasn't every educator set him/herself the task of "incubating students' ideas"?  We are also told that the subject was involved in getting students to visit local businesses.  In the U.S., we used to call these things "field trips".  Is there any school administrator today who hasn't organized field trips for their students?  All that I see in this article (other than the Queen's award) are locally-sourced statements that a school official has been doing the things that we normally expect school officials to do.  And what has become of the subject since receiving the award in 2010?  The article tells us that, in 2013, the subject sought to encourage students to become physically fit and acted as the chairman of a series of inter-school games.  We also learn that the subject had to reduce staff due to budget cuts.  Again, these are routine activities for which WP:Run-of-the-mill can be a useful guide.  As I noted above, I think a better target for a redirect would be a new article on the 2010 recipients of the award, but I'll respect Mr. Farmbrough's judgment that such an article is not advisable.  But the parent article can also serve as an appropriate target, at which a brief biography of the subject can be placed directly under his name.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think a redirect is appropriate in this case and I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies. Editors need not be reminded that subject of an article need not pass all the notability criteria to merit an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia. For example if an academic passes WP:ACADEMIC, they need not pass every other criteria. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to a list of people awarded the prize put simply, I do not accept the Queen's Award for Enterprise Innovation as a sufficient award for notability. There may often be additional factors, but there does not seem to be any here. Principal of a secondary school is generally non-notable. Though there are several possible targets for a redirect, the list of awardees would seem the best chocie. It will in addition permit easy expansion if there is additional notability forthcoming.  DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to the article about the award. While the award contributes to notability, if it is the only claim to notability, than I do not believe this person meets our notability criteria. Outside of the award, not much else. WP:ANYBIO only says that if they have won an award they may be notable. Based on that, delete.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. <li></li> <li></li> <li> The article is also stored hereWebCite.</li> <li> The article notes: "It’s billed as Yorkshire’s super school, but can a new building, even one costing £50m, really kick start the regeneration of Barnsley? Sarah Freeman reports. Since he was appointed last March, Nick Bowen has spent much of his time on a building site. As the head of Barnsley’s new Horizon Community College, he’s been on first name terms with the workmen who have been transforming a 46-acre site into what will be the biggest school in the country. ... Bowen stops short of promising HCC will be able to work miracles, but he does have form when it comes to blending the teaching of traditional education with entrepreneurial skills. In his last headteacher post at St Benet Biscop in the North East, he won the Queen’s Award for Enterprise, normally reserved for business. ... Bowen has been in teaching for almost 25 years and while his career choice may have been accidental, his designs on Barnsley’s education are anything but."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nicholas Bowen to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Comment. All of those sources are notable for the schools or the award, but none infer notability onto Nicholas Bowen. If doing a good job as a headteacher was notable, hundreds of thousands of headteachers would have wikipedia pages. Does anyone have any sources which are primarily about Nicholas Bowen? If not, I don't see how this article passes notability in its current form. As it stands there is no significant coverage about Nicholas Bowen. isfutile:P (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear here. He's not just "A headteacher", he's the inaugural headteacher of "biggest school in the country" according to the Yorkshire Post.   He won a significant award for enterprise innovation.  He meets WP:GNG.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC).


 * If this individual is notable, there should be significant third part coverage about the individual. There isn't in this article. If such sources can be added, I'll change to KEEP, but as it stands I still vote DELETE since notability, on this basis, has not been satisfied.


 * Let's look at the article sources in turn:


 * "Headteacher receives Queen's enterprise award". News Post Leader. 22 April 2010. This article makes passing mention of the article subject and is not enough for notability.
 * "The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion: Recipients list" (PDF). Retrieved 3 October 2015. This source simply replicates source 1.
 * "Staff Contact Information". Retrieved 3 October 2015. This source is irrelevent to notability.
 * "Mr Nicholas Bowen". The Queens Award For Enterprise Magazine: 18-19. ISSN 2041-9783. Retrieved 3 October 2015. This source replicates source 1.
 * "North East super seven celebrating Queen's Award accolade". The Journal. 21 April 2010. Retrieved 3 October 2015. This article is about the school and not the article subject.
 * "Building is to be demolished and then rebuilt". News Post Leader. 22 May 2006. This source is about the school and not the article subject.
 * "Alcan boosts high school youth initiative". Morpeth Herald. 5 March 2008. This source is not about the article subject.
 * Ruth Mitchell (30 July 2008). "UK first puts enterprising kids in the driving seat". B. Daily. This source is not about the article subject.
 * "Project Launch To Get Kids Fit and Active". 15 January 2013. This source is not about the article subject.
 * "Horizon hosting repeat of South Yorkshire School Games". 3 July 2013. This source is not about the article subject.
 * Mike Cotton (27 June 2014). "Secondary school announces shock redundancies". Barnsley Chronicle. This source is not about the article subject.


 * Therefore, only one source makes passing mention of the article subject. There are insufficient sources and no evidence of significant third party coverage of the subject of the article. isfutile:P (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect doesn't seem like a well known award at all, if it was, there would easily be plenty of good sources, right? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2015 (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.