Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles (2nd nomination)


 * 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, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tim Bowles
First AfD was closed as a "no consensus" in a self-contradictory closure despite a 5/2 count for deletion and no sourced claim that the subject – a lawyer for Scientology – is notable. The best "Keep" argument (Bowles was Moxon's partner, until he messed up the Fishman/Geertz case) is not supported by any sources, and neither do the four sources establish notability. A Newsbank search for "Tim Bowles" Scientology yielded one article, for "Tim Bowles" yielded tons, but the top ten finds were about other Tim Bowleses. Absent better sourcing I recommened to delete the article or, if a notable role at Moxon & Kobrin can be established, a merge into that article. ~ trialsanderrors 20:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Try "Timothy Bowles" on Newsbank, as well as "Bowles & Moxon" and "Eric Lieberman"+Bowles. wikipediatrix 00:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Which ones would you pick for the article? Among the top 20, I can only find St. Petersburg Times - September 13, 1987, Scientology lawyer threatens lawsuit as about the subject, and that's more or less a press release. ~ trialsanderrors 22:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, Bowles was Moxon's partner , until he messed up the Fishman/Geertz case. Don't know what newsbank is, but maybe you need to search for Bowles Moxon without their first names. The two separated in the 90ies. I admit, there isn't a source (per Wikipedia standards) that Bowles was ousted of the firm because of the Fishman/Geertz case. But he is still notable enough as a Moxon name partner, and who's still lawyer for scientology causes. --Tilman 06:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * delete. Absolutely nonnotable attorney. Mukadderat 18:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep- Seems to be notableDr.khan 18:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as insufficiently notable since person has not been the subject of multiple independent, non-trivial, reliable sources; see WP:BIO and WP:V. -- Satori Son 05:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 00:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, he's notable on several Scientology-related fronts. Needs improvement, not deletion. wikipediatrix 00:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete So he's an attorney for this "church" (which is more like a cult, but thats besides the point), he dosen't seem notable. TJ Spyke 00:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per Tilman, and I concur with Wikipediatrix. Orsini 07:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, don't see how he is notable. Agree with nom -- Samir धर्म  07:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Mukadderat 16:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, you've already voted on this AfD. wikipediatrix 23:35, 7 November 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.