Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Gowan


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Phil Gowan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non notable writer. No evidence of having actually published any books.  DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Non notable writer, but notable RMS Titanic historian. As the article and the sources says, one of the most important. This is enough to have a wikipedia article. Alsoriano97 (talk) 9:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nautical-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- So he has allegedly done meticulous research into the minutiae of the Titanic. Its sinking was a notable event, but that does not mean that any person who writes about it is notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep As long as better, third party sources can be used., and the article recast from its currently obituary-type format. Phil Gowan was indeed a good scholar re: the RMS Titanic. RIP, Mr. Gowan.TH1980 (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet GNG or NAUTHOR. Certainly would be notable on Ecyclopedia Titanica or Titanicpedia - but not here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notable Titanic historian. NAUTHOR is irrelevant when GNG is met. In addition to some of the good sources already cited, i found https://www.scnow.com/news/local/article_e8e25829-21b1-50f7-9303-ab6fb70ca513.html and https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/a-night-to-remember-a-survivor-forgotten/article_b34ee7ec-868d-11e1-9445-001a4bcf887a.html. In addition to these sources that discuss him in-depth, he is mentioned in dozens of sources on Titanic-related topics whixh all the more raise his credibility as a respected Titanic historian. 106.208.49.250 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - meets the prof test as a famous hisotrian in his own right. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2018 (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.