Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Bowden

Add links
From 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 keep. JPD (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Bowden

[edit]

Non-notable academic. Web search backs this up, with most relevant records simply being databases pulling from his Wikipedia entry. Tim D 19:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is a Google search sans Wikipedia references. From what I see, it's all local theater material, forum postings, and a few references to a study that he did about the benefits of eating together as a family [1] [2]. Futher a PsycINFO search for his research shows 5 journal publications by authors named Blake Bowden (may or may not be him): 1 from 1995, 3 from 1997, and 1 from 2004. None of this signals national notoriety in my opinion. -- Tim D 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, Capitalistroadster: before basing a decision on this, note the content of the news archives (e.g., local sports coverage of other people, etc.), and that Bowden is an author in only two papers shown in Google Scholar. I'm not trying to be pushy, I just want the conclusions to come from the right places. -- Tim D 03:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is Bowden being judged as an academic, a practitioner, or as a writer/performer? Bowden is none of these alone. Bowden does his work as a psychologist and writer/actor and manages to churn out an occasional scholarly article for publication/presentation in refereed journals. He also manages to practice his profession, and to write/produce original plays. What criteria do you judge someone who does 3 careers (Pediatric Psych, School Psych, Playwright/actor) all at once - and has achieved some attention in each (CNN, USNEws, AP, French Documentary, Creative Class, etc.) Theguyinblue 14 October 2006
  • Comment. Cliffs notes from the talk page: the only role that matters is that which gets national attention, i.e., his academic work. Local theater and private practice work unfortunately mean very little when it comes to encyclopedic notoriety. -- Tim D 19:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up comment. 'Local theater' agreed. When is local theater not local? When it is picked up on international websites? When it is featured in a European documentary? I'm not sure that this is really 'local,' is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theguyinblue (talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 October 2006.
  • Comment. I would say that theater is not local when it moves beyond the local area, either by tour or by popularity. So if there is something going on in Cincinnati and moderately theater-conscious people in Chicago are not aware of it, then it probably qualifies as "local." -- Tim D 05:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I agree, theatre is not local when it moves beyond the local area - but not by tour or popularity alone - not only because you argue against 'popular press' as a reason to delete Bowen's article. The international attention Bowen accrued for his theatre accomplishments outweigh what 'theatre-concious people in Chicago' might be aware of. Mary Zimmerman's work on The Oedypus was not noted when she first produced it in Chicago in the late 80s but has since gained at least national (if not international attention). Have all of Chicago theatre folks heard of this production? Let's not let provincialism among a select few from the city of big shoulders diminish the international accomplishments of writing/producing three shows in three years SIMULTANEOUSLY (but before in each case) with an international film release of related content. Yes? Besides - the productions in Cincinnati appeared to have done better than the 'big guy' (with tons more money and marketing) in Toronto... right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguyinblue (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 October 2006
  • Comment Don't get too hung up on my using Chicago as an example. I probably should have written "City A" and "City B" rather than two specific names. Anyway, I think all that's been said about the matter has been said. If it can be shown that he is well known outside of local circles, then his article is legitimate. From what I've seen so far, that isn't the case. Nothing personal, of course, if you happen to know him. -- Tim D 01:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In case this wasn't clear from my previous posts. Whether as an academic, a private practitioner, or an artist: Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguyinblue (talk • contribs) 17:09, 16 October 2006
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blake_Bowden&oldid=1070818080"