Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles


 * 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 as follows: It is established that Tim Bowles is notable among Scientologists. The easy way out would be to "delete" given the well formulated arguments to delete. Despite that, I opt for no consensus, as the arguments to delete do not convince me. --Ezeu 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tim Bowles
Notability not established. This non-notable attorney's claim to "fame" is that he works for the Church of Scientology. Aren't there about a thousand other lawyers who could say the same thing? Crabapplecove 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete More like millions. --DarkAudit 22:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Bowles was Moxon's partner, until he messed up the Fishman/Geertz case. --Tilman 06:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, subject's relationship to another notable person does not confer notability. If this "Fishman/Geertz" case makes the subject notable, it should be included in the article, but I couldn't find much verifiable info on this case. Going by the numbers, we have 279 unique Ghits, and as far as I can tell none of these fit WP:RS standards. -- H·G (words/works) 06:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, he's notable among observers of Scientology, and that's the target audience of the article anyway, isn't it? Failing a keep, I would suggest a Merge to Moxon & Kobrin. wikipediatrix 21:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - even if the subject is notable among observers of Scientology, this notability isn't established in the article. If the subject has more claims to notoriety than having simply worked for the Church of Scientology, and if these claims are established and clarified in the article, I'd be willing to change my vote. -- H·G (words/works) 07:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability among 'Scientology watchers' != notability as far as Wikipedia policy and/or guidelines is concerned. --DarkAudit 14:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per H·G. DrL 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Frankly, I might have speedied this if the debate hadn't already existed.  Basically the article says, repeatedly, that this guy is a lawyer for the church of scientology, and that's it.  Why should we care?  I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground.  Mango juice talk 13:46, 11 August 2006 (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.