Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clement Bowman

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Bowman[edit]

Paid insertion into Wikipedia. Self promotion. More information on the spam/advertisement by banned Zithan (talk · contribs), at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_Ha!. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Rewrite per DGG's offer. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Delete Too much bias/COI. Possibly notable, but would need complete recreation to sufficiently clear it. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If he had a band or a local radio station you would hold him to what criteria for notability? I wouldn't react against the paid status as this is just disclosure but article seems more like a resume than encyclopedia. Perhaps with a few more sources - does he have patents or was he mentioned in other works- it would be fine. I'd be more interested in the guy mentioned in passing who got the extraction process to work as this guys seems like more bluster than substance but it is hard to tell from the article as written. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. None of the references seem to establish notabiliy (actually many of them seem to be primary sources) Laurent (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Cirt ,Yellowmonkey and Laurent1979.Clearly fails WP:N and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would consider being a member of the Order of Canada a sign of notability. This article might be better served being stubbified rather than deleted. Reso lute 18:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, especially given DGG's offer to rewrite. Reso lute 20:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Order of Canada is notable. Article can be appropriately rewritten, & I will do it if kept. The refs from Canadian Chemical News are acceptable 3rd party sources. I do not necessarily oppose paid editing, if done to our standards, but this article, and the other examples from the same source, are example of writing formulaic unconvincing PR-style articles, not encyclopedia articles. DGG (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep DGG is right, being a member of the Order of Canada meets the first point of WP:ANYBIO. Poor writing is not a deletion criteria, rather justification for cleanup. --kelapstick (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Order of Canada is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough here to establish notability and with DGG's offer to rewrite I think we can keep this article. Davewild (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Order of Canada. Ha! (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2009 (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.