Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles (3rd nomination)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 tending to a keep consensus, discounting partisan shenanigans, defaulting to keep -- Y not? 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Bowles
Delete as non-notable attorney. Two previous AfDs (1st AfD and 2nd AfD) ended in "no consensus" with the majority of the "Keep" votes being placed by previously involved Scientology critics and the majority of the "Delete" votes by neutral editors. An admin, trialsanderrors, placed the 2nd AfD and questioned the "No consensus" close of the first."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. . ."
--Justanother 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - no new argument. Bowles was Moxon's partner [1] [2] [3]. The two separated in the 90ies. Notable enough as a Moxon name partner, and who's still lawyer for scientology causes. --Tilman 19:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly think this qualifies for Speedy as the Delete votes in the previous AfDs outnumbered the Keep votes, especially if you count unique voters as the Keep votes were basically the same crew while the Delete voters were different in each case. I will notify all previous voters as time permits. --Justanother 20:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete; replace with a redirect to Moxon & Kobrin. This person is just a lawyer who happened to have for a time been in a law firm of some minor importance, but not a single source has been presented that is reliable and actually says anything about Bowles (except his probably self-written profile). This guy is just some lawyer. In the interests of fairness, I want to mention I was directed to this debate, but I think Justanother has been alerting all previous participants, not just those favoring deletion. Mangojuicetalk 20:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, alert is all or nothing - I alerted everyone. Thanks for your input. --Justanother 20:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Mr Bowles activities are notable. A merge with Moxon & Kobrin wouldn't work because of his activities separate from that firm, with Narconon, CCHR, Delphi and director of Youth for Human Rights International. AndroidCat 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lawyers, even law partners, are not notable ex officio. There is an article at Moxon & Kobrin that can take the scraps offered here. No evidence that independent sources found him notable enough to provide biographical information. (Thanks for notifying, Justanother.) ~ trialsanderrors 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Excellent points by AndroidCat, Tilman, these constant AFDs are a waste of time and disruptive, as has been mentioned before... Smee 21:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete While some of the law firms/organizations he has worked for are notable, nothing on his page suggests he is any more notable than other attorneys. TJ Spyke 21:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO unless some reliable, independent secondary sources are produced establishing notability. MastCell Talk 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable .Greglocock 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article describes him as a person who has lived and worked, that's it! nothing worth reading. How is he special or notable. --FateClub 01:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He's an attorney. He's a Scientologist. That's it. There isn't anything there that makes him notable or elevates him above the attorneys in the office down the street from me. DarkAudit 03:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per User:Smee points out, frivolous AfDs which do not cite any new reasons to delete the article are an abuse of process. Orsini 12:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The reason given for deletion are not WP:BIO. The things you mention are not actually notable (in Wikipedia terms) unless he is the subject of some reliable, independent third-party coverage. The lack of such coverage is the reason the article should be deleted. Since the previous two AfD's closed with no consensus (not keep), I don't see how a renomination is automatically an abuse of process. MastCell Talk 15:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The lack of coverage cited in the article to date is not a valid reason for deletion, unless the article is a "hopless case". AfD policy clearly states that cleanup tags etc should be used instead of nominating articles for AfD. I do not believe this article is a hopeless case; it should be expanded. WP:BIO is not mentioned in the nomination statement, nor does the subject qualify for A7. With regards to the subject's notability, even a fast Google search shows the case Christofferson v. Church of Scientology of Portland, et al., 57 Or.App. 203, 644 P. 2d 577 (1981) is one part of why the subject is notable, as it is often noted in cases involving religion. If I had more time to devote to this matter than I currently do, I am certain I could find more reliably sourced material for adding to this article. Please also note I will not reply to baiting by one editor's blantant and intentional misrepresentation of facts repeated here about another article which scientology doesn't like, and which was listed for AfD after a campaign of disruption and edit warring. Orsini 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is the 3rd AfD, and still no sources demonstrate notability at the level WP:BIO, the article stands to be deleted. If you don't have time now, you can re-create the article later when you have the sources, but depicting this as a matter of jumping the gun when there have been two prior AfD's and still no notability doesn't add up. MastCell Talk 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. It is an "abuse of process" because a Scientologist (me) is trying to sit in the front of the wikibus with the other folk. I don't know my place = "abuse of process". Usually they ask that I be blocked for even thinking about AfD'ing one of their beloved non-notable smear pieces.[4][5][6] --Justanother 17:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Not a single notability reason provided. An ordinary person. Mukadderat 22:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy keep: per Tilman & Orsini - yet another absolutely absurd AfD. Ombudsman 00:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge NN lawyer for some firm with low V, and the reason to have the article at all is because of association with a debated NRM? Do lawyers for the moonies have their own articles, too? Ronabop 01:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rev. Moon's lawyer does have his own article: Laurence Tribe Steve Dufour 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Director of this, was instrumental in the demise of that. If that's why the article needs to be kept, then why isn't it in the article itself? If this guy wasn't a Scientologist, there'd be no first AfD. It would have been speedied the first day. DarkAudit 15:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No accomplishments or personal notability mentioned that would indicate encyclopedicity. `'mikka 15:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He does not seem notable enough for a WP bio. And he himself objected to it on the article's talk page. Steve Dufour 04:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No new arguments proposed for deletion, and no, alleging that everyone who didn't vote the way you wanted was biased and everyone who did vote the way you wanted isn't an argument, let alone a new one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All due respect, Antaeus, but when the same crew always votes the same way and when a number of editors come out of the blue and vote a different way, that says something. And I have seen it time and again when I ask for 3rd opinions, the only notable exception being Schwarz but I never expected that to be a pushover. Compare that to how many times I have asked for 3rd opinions and been backed up by neutral editors. It says something. And it is lucky for me that the larger community almost uniformly agrees with me in my objections to the misapplication and violation of wikipedia policy that I see over and over and over in the Scientology series articles. Lucky for me because I am kinda outnumbered by Scientology critics. Luckily the critics are VASTLY outnumbered by neutral editors that just look at the merits and say "this is odd". I think some of your number are starting to smell the coffee, maybe you among them. On this one? No new argument required, it never ended "Keep" and the 1st AfD should have been closed as "Delete" or been taken to WP:DRV for being closed wrongly. --Justanother 14:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable.— JyriL talk 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is just another attempt by the Church of Scientology to whitewash criticism from articles about the church and its agents. ]
- Delete. I wholeheartedly applaud the efforts by ]
- Keep. Appears to be notable. --Eastmain 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not a Scientologist. Never even considered it. There is no conspiracy on my part. There is nothing here that catches the eye. Nothing about any notable cases he's argued, or any litigation he's been part of. No publications he's written, or had written about him. There's no 'there' there. DarkAudit 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep highly visible scientologist. Actively involved in several lawsuits which recieved mass media attention. He passes the bar of notability easily. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Tilman, AndroidCat, and Orsini. Robertissimo 12:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Justanother and MastCell -- Jpierreg 14:33, 18 April 2007 (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.
"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. . ."
- Hardly think this qualifies for Speedy as the Delete votes in the previous AfDs outnumbered the Keep votes, especially if you count unique voters as the Keep votes were basically the same crew while the Delete voters were different in each case. I will notify all previous voters as time permits. --Justanother 20:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, alert is all or nothing - I alerted everyone. Thanks for your input. --Justanother 20:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smee 21:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply
]WP:BIO unless some reliable, independent secondary sources are produced establishing notability. MastCell Talk 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]User:Smee points out, frivolous AfDs which do not cite any new reasons to delete the article are an abuse of process. Orsini 12:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]- Comment: The reason given for deletion are not WP:BIO. The things you mention are not actually notable (in Wikipedia terms) unless he is the subject of some reliable, independent third-party coverage. The lack of such coverage is the reason the article should be deleted. Since the previous two AfD's closed with no consensus (not keep), I don't see how a renomination is automatically an abuse of process. MastCell Talk 15:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The lack of coverage cited in the article to date is not a valid reason for deletion, unless the article is a "hopless case". AfD policy clearly states that cleanup tags etc should be used instead of nominating articles for AfD. I do not believe this article is a hopeless case; it should be expanded. WP:BIO is not mentioned in the nomination statement, nor does the subject qualify for A7. With regards to the subject's notability, even a fast Google search shows the case Christofferson v. Church of Scientology of Portland, et al., 57 Or.App. 203, 644 P. 2d 577 (1981) is one part of why the subject is notable, as it is often noted in cases involving religion. If I had more time to devote to this matter than I currently do, I am certain I could find more reliably sourced material for adding to this article. Please also note I will not reply to baiting by one editor's blantant and intentional misrepresentation of facts repeated here about another article which scientology doesn't like, and which was listed for AfD after a campaign of disruption and edit warring. Orsini 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is the 3rd AfD, and still no sources demonstrate notability at the level WP:BIO, the article stands to be deleted. If you don't have time now, you can re-create the article later when you have the sources, but depicting this as a matter of jumping the gun when there have been two prior AfD's and still no notability doesn't add up. MastCell Talk 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is the 3rd AfD, and still no sources demonstrate notability at the level
- Comment - The lack of coverage cited in the article to date is not a valid reason for deletion, unless the article is a "hopless case". AfD policy clearly states that cleanup tags etc should be used instead of nominating articles for AfD. I do not believe this article is a hopeless case; it should be expanded.
- Sigh. It is an "abuse of process" because a Scientologist (me) is trying to sit in the front of the wikibus with the other folk. I don't know my place = "abuse of process". Usually they ask that I be blocked for even thinking about AfD'ing one of their beloved non-notable smear pieces.[4][5][6] --Justanother 17:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rev. Moon's lawyer does have his own article: Laurence Tribe Steve Dufour 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All due respect, Antaeus, but when the same crew always votes the same way and when a number of editors come out of the blue and vote a different way, that says something. And I have seen it time and again when I ask for 3rd opinions, the only notable exception being Schwarz but I never expected that to be a pushover. Compare that to how many times I have asked for 3rd opinions and been backed up by neutral editors. It says something. And it is lucky for me that the larger community almost uniformly agrees with me in my objections to the misapplication and violation of wikipedia policy that I see over and over and over in the Scientology series articles. Lucky for me because I am kinda outnumbered by Scientology critics. Luckily the critics are VASTLY outnumbered by neutral editors that just look at the merits and say "this is odd". I think some of your number are starting to smell the coffee, maybe you among them. On this one? No new argument required, it never ended "Keep" and the 1st AfD should have been closed as "Delete" or been taken to WP:DRV for being closed wrongly. --Justanother 14:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]