Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Bowen

Nicholas Bowen

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

This individual is not notable. The article appears to be self promotion. The edit history and users involved suggest a conflict of interest and non neutral point of view re Horison Community College. isfutile:P (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it is certainly true that the user who added Bowen's current affiliation to Horizon Community College, in a couple of five word sentences also edited the college's page, and may indeed be surmised to be have, shall we say, some affiliation, it is not true that the article is non-neutral about his involvement. Indeed the editor concerned added negative news citations to the college page.

Certainly I have never met Bowen, and am not his alter-ego, as the couple of hundred editors who have met me in the flesh can testify.

Bowen was awarded a significant award, and has a documented history of innovating for enterprise, specifically, but not exclusively, young enterprise.

He easily passes WP:GNG on this basis.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

delete. Of the two refs one is to his own institution, so not a reliable third party one, while the other mentions him only in passing. So no in-depth coverage in a reliable source, never mind the multiple sources required for GNG. Secondary school academics are rarely notable and usually require exceptional evidence, such as winning a national award. The Queen's Awards for Enterprise is award to over a hundred people or organisations every year, and is hardly grounds for notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Queens Award for Enterprise Innovation is awarded to about 7 or 8 people per year. Unlike the Queens Award to Industry, which is awarded to organisations, it is awarded to people. Moreover it is an award for "good works" benefiting others, rather than for (possibly enlightened) self interest.
- Please note nominator had eviscerated the references from this article before nominating and removed the main claim to notability from the lead. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I had a look at the version immediately before nomination and it makes no difference; the additional references are both first party ones to official coverage of the award, not reliable third party ones. And there are over a hundred awards under the Queen's Award every year. The one third party ref, to a local paper, lists seven alone in this part of the country. And a brief mention in a local paper is not enough for GNG.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems that, for quite some time now, User:Rich Farmbrough has set himself the task of creating articles for each and every recipient of the Queen's Enterprise Award. For most of them, it is difficult to see how they ever would have gotten articles were it not for the award and, accordingly, the merits of a stand-alone article should be judged under the guidelines for "single-event" notability. This point is a lot clearer if we look at the articles for some of the other 2010 recipients -- Timothy Allan, Simon Denny (professor), Murdoch MacLeod, or Kenneth Nelson (businessman). Mr. Farmbrough, may I make a suggestion? How about creating an article for each year's crop of recipients, such as "Queen's Enterprise Promotion Award 2010"? I doubt that anyone would object to such an article and it would be the perfect place to host a brief biography of each recipient. The individual articles could remain as re-directs to the overall article for the particular year. What do you think? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]