Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bowles (author)

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. I highly suggest someone open up a sockpuppet investigation related to the comments below. Missvain (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Bowles (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Subject fails the standards laid out in WP:AUTHOR for notability, the only pages that link to the article are for various awards which do not themselves confer notability, and DignidadLiteraria, a notable project but not one which inherently implies notability on the part of it's creators. Additionally, the page seems to mostly be edited by two individuals one of whom has identified herself as a professional colleague of the subject and one who, based on their edit history, may be the subject himself. MichiganCharms (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I oppose this AfD attempt. We should keep the article. There has been a concerted, orchestrated attack on the subject since his Twitter threads of December 1 and 2, 2020. This is simply another attempt at attacking him, by an editor who is not active on Wikipedia. However, I will add sources to address MichiganCharms purported issues with the article. Amycummins (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, and of course bowing to any proof that WP:SIGCOV can be found demonstrating notability, the above editor appears to be a close professional colleague of the subject. See 1 and 2. Her contributions may well violate WP:COI. -MichiganCharms (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this AfD attempt. Author is notable advocate for diverse voices in children's literature. ^[1][2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katytanis (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep David Bowles is an award-winning author of books for young people. He is the subject of assignments in schools. It would be a disservice to education to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.48.105 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The fact that, with the exception of minor edits and bot edits, only one user actively edits this page -- User:Amycummins, who seems to be David Bowles himself, possibly using a colleague's name or account -- demonstrates its non-notability. The only other major editor of the article, User: RGVLiterature, is likewise a colleague, RGVLiterature no doubt referring to the UT Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Literature department. This person seems obsessed with attention, as evidenced by his baffling inclusion of a link to his (also self-maintained) IMDb page, which lists a pilot he's announced, a special thanks credit on a seven-minute short from seven years ago, and an appearance on a single episode of a TV show from six years ago. Until this develops into a Jessica Krug scenario, this article is not notable. —Psammeticus (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I usually don't advocate for blowing up articles--I think they can just, you know, be edited--but there are too many red flags with this one: the COI, the many non-RS or dead links, the overly promotional tone. But there are some good refs, and I think that he has a weak case for notability. Caro7200 (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have no connection to this author, though I am a student of literature for children at Hugo House in Seattle. This author is a very well-published, award-winning author. This article should not be deleted. SimonBean101 (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Simonbean101 (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)^[4][reply]

• Keep - I am a children's book writer and follow David Bowles on social media channels. He is a prolific, award-winning author who has a strong voice in the larger writing community. Attempts to take down this article are politically and ideologically-driven, especially given the timing of this request in relation to David's recent discussion of increasing diversity within public school curriculum. This article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinepritchard (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC) — Carolinepritchard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep - Yes, there were issues with COI, I believe. But my recents edits should have fixed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libiabrenda (talk • Libiabrenda (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)contribs) 19:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC) — Libiabrenda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment All keep votes thus far have come from accounts with no edit histories before today or from an account engaged in COI. - MichiganCharms (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have no professional links or association with David Bowles, but feel that he is certainly significant enough for a Wikipedia page. In addition to his numerous awards, he's well-regarded by his peers. See Frederick Luis Aldama, "Interventions: An Interview With David Bowles," American Book Review, volume 41, Number 6, September/October 2020; Carla Espana & Luz Yadira Herrera, "Translanguaging Literacies," in Translanguaging and Transformative Teaching for Emergent Bilingual Students, Routledge, Nov. 26, 2020; Cathryn Merla-Watson, "Latinofuturism," in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature, Oxford UP, 2019; Caroline Dodds Pennock, "Aztecs Abroad? Uncovering the Early Indigenous Atlantic," American Historical Review, volume 125, issue 3, June 2020; Stephanie Alvarez, Amanda Tovar, and Mariana Alessandri, Borderlands, volume 24, spring 2020; among others. I can keep going. Do I need to? - Johnjnevins (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC) — Johnjnevins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment There is an increasing number of single purpose accounts being created for the sole purpose of voting in favor of keeping this article. The above user created their account at 22:50 and within 19 minutes had assembled a detailed bibliography for a random academic they do not know. The fact that nobody besides recently-created, SPA are voting "keep" is significant. (In interest of disclosure, I have deleted a previous comment that I felt was too sarcastic and did not further the discussion.) -Psammeticus (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All the other issues aside the bar for this article is WP:AUTHOR and given all the effort to keep the article, there is no indication that that bar of WP:AUTHOR is met. Jeepday (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's difficult to AGF when the proponents for deletion discount a significant body of widely-cited and award-winning literature, backed up with third party reported social activism, as not meeting WP:AUTHOR. It is met. On another channel it would be difficult to refrain from calling this proposal malicious and absurd. BarryNorton (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, though the article is definitely has some exageration and self-promotion, he's likely to meet WP;NAUTHOR by having created notable works, for example They Call Me Güero which has received multiple reviews[1][2][3] and (unless the list is a work of fiction itself) multiple recognition. Article needs a clean-up and probable monitoring, not deletion. Sionk (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The author has written almost the entire WikiPedia page himself and has, on his Twitter account, asked colleagues to stand up and help save the page from "deletion." Not long after, a large number of single-use accounts has been created to write that his awards constitute "notoriety." Misuse, on the part of the author, to self-promote and attempts to smear anyone who is trying to delete the article as "trolls" on his Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanmachien (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 December 2020 (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.