Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bowman (poet)

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bowman (poet)

Thomas Bowman (poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe that this poet passes our

• delete Like
  non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, but my attempts at googling his name with the names of any of his 3 books of poetry turned up nothing, nor did googling his name in various ways with "Love is" , which the article describes as his most famous poem, nor did googling his name and"bush poet". Newly created article by new user. I did post on the creator's talk page, explaining the kinds of validating articles that an article on Bowman would need.ShulMaven (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Austlit lists 3 volumes of poetry but no other mentions of the poet or his work anywhere. It appears, and I may be wrong in this, that the volumes were either self-published or published by a group as a means of fund-raising. I agree that it doesn't pass the relevant notability criteria. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.