613:
her specific field." Bowen made such a contribution to his specific field (journalism) and his relationship with Thomas is simply supporting evidence of this contribution, which I am forced to compile due to the article being listed for deletion. If the article is deleted, I will make a request for it to be undeleted and a request for dispute mediation. For now, I will continue to compile sources that portray Bowen as a notable person. Thanks to all for your input & help. Also, I now have a better understanding of the weaknesses of this article, and I apologize if I did not assume good faith on the part of the editor who listed it for deletion. It just seemed strange that the article would be listed for deletion after it had been around for so long.
515:"Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, which are mandated by the featured article criteria and (to a lesser extent) the good article criteria. Inline citations are references within the text that provide source information for specific statements. They are appropriate for supporting statements of fact and are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations."
430:. No attribution of notability to independent sources. I don't think city editors are inherently notable, and thus notability must be established by third party coverage. The article, as it is, spends more time on his family than on his professional career -- and that's just in the one paragraph devoted to it. --
572:
I have added references for a book and WSJ article Bowen authored. I also noticed that the Lowell Thomas entry (nobody can deny that HE is notable) referenced Bowen's biography of him, and there was a dead link to Bowen's entry (please note that I did not add this reference, I only completed the link
612:
Bowen's association with Thomas is not the sole criteria for his notable status, as you seem to assume. Knowledge states that for biographical entries, a person may be considered notable if "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or
510:
I don't deny that I am new to
Knowledge. I am learning as I go, but I don't think the mistakes I have made should be grounds for deleting this article. From what I have read here, the main concern with this article seems to be a lack of "verifiable sources." Knowledge gives the following guidelines
446:
Knowledge gives the following guideline on notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." I realize that there is a need to include other reliable sources that establish his notability, but I think
527:
in the information I have provided. If there are specific concerns about facts or wording I will gladly address those concerns. I will also provide footnotes and additonal references if needed. What I don't appreciate is experienced editors trying to bully newbies or dismissing our efforts to
573:
to Bowen's page.) In accordance with
Knowledge standards I have also added footnote-style references to the entry. How can a published author, major newspaper editor, and friend/biographer of the famous newsman Lowell Thomas not be considered notable enough for Knowledge?
242:
I feel this is a valid and well-researched article about a noted journalist, LDS church leader and nationally published author. Those who dispute the references and citations have not listed any specific facts or claims that they feel to be unsupported or untrue. As for
819:
Well, obviously I (and maybe one other editor) don't agree that this article should be deleted, but the majority opinion seems to favor deleting it. I have copied the article to my user page and plan to continue research and recreate the article
484:
its being listed for deletion. I didn't know he wasn't adequately supported as being "notable." So, if it's deleted I will request it to be undeleted and continue to do so until it is considered worthy of
Knowledge.
593:(a famous newsman), should I merit my own article? I think the logic of your argument is flawed. Also, you are stretching the truth, as Bowen was not Lowell's "biographer"—he only edited Lowell's autobiography. --
634:, I'd like to say that I didn't intend my intentions to request undeletion, mediation, etc. to sound like threats, I was just unfamiliar with the deletion process and misunderstood the nature of those processes.
358:
this is an abviously notable journalist, and editor of an important newspaper. The article needs footnotes, I suggest that the author look at other articles and learn how wikipedia articles are constructed.
145:, Knowledge is not a directory of genealogical entries. City editor does not seem to be notable and mission president is not notable enough alone for Knowledge entry. No other articles link to this one.
653:
This gentleman was nothing more than an average journeyman journalist, and we delete them from WP every single day. There are hundreds of thousands of them, and they are not notable writers by
255:
there is absolutely no conflict of interest and this is, as
Eustress suggests, a false accusation. I feel that prejudice more of a part in this than does the reliability of my information.
141:
per Close relationships since the principal editor of the article has not really edited any pages other than this one (sorry if false accusation, but just presenting the evidence). Per
758:
Third creation? The article has only been created once so far. You're right, Bowen may not meet notability standards for
Knowledge, but I'd like to see what else I can come up with.
251:, the subject is a well-known journalist and author who was the city editor of a major metropolitan newspaper (the SLC Deseret News), and an important LDS church leader. As for
744:
You can copy text to your userspace anytime; however, I'm doubtful that another (third) creation of the article could do much more to try to establish Bowen's notability. --
548:
It is not just that you need to use reliable sources or inline citations. Those are matters of style. But material that is not adequately supported by sources is not
122:
216:
89:
84:
93:
76:
772:
Okay, sorry...second creation. But you can just copy the text over to a userpage if you want. You might consider setting up a personal
337:
Just curious: How do you get a hold of an unpublished family history of someone without a close relationship (family, friend, etc.)? --
661:, or anything else. The other point being pushed is that he was a Mormon, but there's nothing inherently notable about that either.
49:
318:
I am currently searching for additional references and I have cited a verifiable article (not an obituary) in a major newspaper.
17:
528:
contribute to
Knowledge. I was never even given a chance to make changes to the article before it was listed for deletion.
519:
I have provided general references that support the information in the article. As far as I can tell, there is nothing
877:
36:
862:
841:
808:
785:
767:
753:
737:
723:
691:
670:
643:
622:
602:
582:
560:
537:
494:
472:
456:
438:
422:
389:
367:
346:
327:
310:
264:
231:
206:
175:
154:
58:
876:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
305:
201:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
137:(cites an unpublished family history, an obituary with no author indicated, and a book he edited), and likely
80:
163:
464:
You created this article last year. Exactly how much time do you want? An AFD normally lasts five days. --
227:
72:
64:
363:
837:
804:
773:
763:
733:
687:
639:
618:
578:
533:
490:
452:
385:
323:
301:
260:
197:
858:
781:
749:
598:
557:
469:
435:
342:
150:
171:
54:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
666:
223:
682:'s discussion page about him making anti-Mormon edits, which may play a part in his input.
590:
359:
277:
833:
800:
759:
729:
683:
635:
614:
574:
529:
486:
448:
412:
381:
319:
285:
256:
133:(no notable award or wide contribution; does not meet creative professional criteria),
854:
850:
829:
777:
745:
706:
702:
654:
594:
553:
465:
431:
400:
338:
281:
273:
252:
248:
244:
146:
142:
138:
130:
447:
there should at least be a grace period given in which I can provide those sources.
712:
658:
296:
167:
134:
110:
679:
662:
549:
404:
290:
192:
407:
resources the notability of the subject. The only info I found on him was this
631:
408:
728:
If this article is deleted, please undelete it to my userspace. Thanks.
853:. A nice article for a genealogy site but it doesn't belong here.
870:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
678:
I'd like to point out that there are several complaints on
410:. I would love to reconcider with some additional sources.
276:
on the part of other editors. Also, since
Knowledge is a
299:
which discuss the subject matter in a nontrivial way. -
117:
106:
102:
98:
797:
This article is also part of the LDS WikiProject. See
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
880:). No further edits should be made to this page.
191:" is not a valid reference because it cannot be
403:the burden falls on the editor to show through
828:I feel like I can prove that Bowen satisfies
8:
217:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
380:Yes, thank you, I will add footnotes ASAP.
630:Revisions are continuing. Per advice from
215:: This debate has been included in the
480:Yes, I created it last year, and just
7:
849:I can't see anything that satisfies
24:
50:User:Pbsolomon/Norman Ralph Bowen
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
824:the article is deleted and
552:and subject to deletion. --
897:
707:BIO:Creative professionals
589:So if I were friends with
511:for providing references:
189:unpublished family history
873:Please do not modify it.
863:18:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
842:19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
809:14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
786:15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
768:15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
754:15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
738:14:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
724:13:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
692:14:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
671:05:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
644:20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
623:21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
603:21:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
583:21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
561:20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
538:19:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
495:20:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
473:20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
457:19:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
439:19:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
423:18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
390:17:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
368:17:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
347:17:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
328:17:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
311:17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
265:17:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
232:17:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
207:16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
176:14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
162:This AfD nomination was
155:22:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
59:18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
525:likely to be challenged
166:. It is listed now.
705:, specifically for
284:. An article must
73:Norman Ralph Bowen
65:Norman Ralph Bowen
44:The result was
722:
282:original research
280:we cannot accept
274:assume good faith
234:
220:
888:
875:
721:
719:
717:
419:
309:
297:reliable sources
221:
211:
205:
120:
114:
96:
34:
896:
895:
891:
890:
889:
887:
886:
885:
884:
878:deletion review
871:
713:
711:
709:(journalists).
591:Anderson Cooper
413:
308:
302:CobaltBlueTony™
300:
278:tertiary source
204:
198:CobaltBlueTony™
196:
116:
87:
71:
68:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
894:
892:
883:
882:
866:
865:
844:
813:
812:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
741:
740:
726:
696:
695:
694:
651:Strong Delete.
648:
647:
646:
606:
605:
586:
585:
566:
565:
564:
563:
517:
516:
506:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
425:
394:
393:
392:
372:
371:
352:
351:
350:
349:
332:
331:
330:
304:
236:
235:
209:
200:
181:
180:
179:
178:
129:Article fails
127:
126:
67:
62:
52:per request. –
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
893:
881:
879:
874:
868:
867:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
845:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
818:
815:
814:
811:
810:
806:
802:
798:
795:
794:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
770:
769:
765:
761:
757:
756:
755:
751:
747:
743:
742:
739:
735:
731:
727:
725:
720:
718:
716:
708:
704:
700:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
674:
673:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
626:
625:
624:
620:
616:
611:
608:
607:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
587:
584:
580:
576:
571:
570:Re:Notability
568:
567:
562:
559:
555:
551:
547:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
526:
522:
514:
513:
512:
509:
496:
492:
488:
483:
479:
476:
475:
474:
471:
467:
463:
460:
459:
458:
454:
450:
445:
442:
441:
440:
437:
433:
429:
426:
424:
421:
420:
418:
417:
409:
406:
402:
398:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
376:
375:
374:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
354:
353:
348:
344:
340:
336:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
314:
313:
312:
307:
303:
298:
294:
293:
292:
287:
286:properly cite
283:
279:
275:
271:
268:
267:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
241:
238:
237:
233:
229:
225:
218:
214:
210:
208:
203:
199:
194:
190:
186:
183:
182:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
160:
159:
158:
157:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
124:
119:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
872:
869:
846:
825:
821:
816:
796:
714:
710:
698:
675:
650:
627:
609:
569:
545:
524:
520:
518:
507:
505:
481:
477:
461:
443:
427:
415:
414:
411:
396:
377:
355:
334:
315:
289:
288:
269:
239:
212:
188:
184:
128:
55:Black Falcon
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
680:User:Qworty
521:contentious
224:Fabrictramp
817:Consensus?
405:verifiable
370:Becca02459
360:Becca02459
291:verifiable
164:incomplete
834:Pbsolomon
801:Pbsolomon
760:Pbsolomon
730:Pbsolomon
684:Pbsolomon
636:Pbsolomon
615:Pbsolomon
575:Pbsolomon
530:Pbsolomon
487:Pbsolomon
449:Pbsolomon
416:Gtstricky
382:Pbsolomon
320:Pbsolomon
257:Pbsolomon
855:Dimitrii
778:Eustress
746:Eustress
701:. Fails
595:Eustress
554:Dhartung
508:Comment.
466:Dhartung
432:Dhartung
339:Eustress
240:Comment.
193:verified
185:Comment:
147:Eustress
123:View log
774:sandbox
715:Barkeep
628:Update:
550:notable
546:Comment
462:Comment
272:Please
168:DumbBOT
90:protect
85:history
851:WP:BIO
847:Delete
830:WP:BIO
703:WP:BIO
699:Delete
676:Reply:
663:Qworty
655:WP:BIO
610:Reply:
478:Reply:
444:Reply:
428:Delete
401:WP:BIO
399:fails
397:Delete
378:Reply:
335:Reply:
316:Reply:
270:Reply:
253:WP:COI
249:WP:NOT
245:WP:BIO
143:WP:NOT
139:WP:COI
131:WP:BIO
118:delete
94:delete
46:userfy
659:WP:BK
135:WP:RS
121:) – (
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
859:talk
838:talk
805:talk
782:talk
776:. --
764:talk
750:talk
734:talk
688:talk
667:talk
640:talk
632:Doug
619:talk
599:talk
579:talk
558:Talk
534:talk
491:talk
470:Talk
453:talk
436:Talk
386:talk
364:talk
356:Keep
343:talk
324:talk
306:talk
261:talk
247:and
228:talk
213:Note
202:talk
195:. -
187:An "
172:talk
151:talk
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
523:or
482:now
222:--
219:.
48:to
861:)
840:)
832:.
826:if
822:if
807:)
784:)
766:)
752:)
736:)
690:)
669:)
657:,
642:)
621:)
601:)
581:)
556:|
536:)
493:)
468:|
455:)
434:|
388:)
366:)
345:)
326:)
295:,
263:)
230:)
174:)
153:)
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
857:(
836:(
803:(
799:]
780:(
762:(
748:(
732:(
686:(
665:(
638:(
617:(
597:(
577:(
532:(
489:(
451:(
384:(
362:(
341:(
322:(
259:(
226:(
170:(
149:(
125:)
115:(
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.