Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Russell Fowler

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 no consensus. This is a classic example of how swamping an afd with irrelevant non-policy based arguments from spa's is a good way to get your article deleted as it is extremely hard to winnow out the wheat from the chaff here. What is clear is that either the book or the individual are notable but its not entirely clear that we have a consensus on either so I'm calling this no-consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Russell Fowler[edit]

Nick Russell Fowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nick Russell Fowler is a non-notable person lacking Google Search and Google News hits. Vipinhari || talk 17:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In regard to the assertion that Nick Fowler is a non-notable person I must submit a grievance on his behalf, as he is a published writer and an extremely talented and seasoned musician and actor. I feel he has every right to keep his entry here and would be appalled if it were deleted. Please allow time for his entry to be brought up to the standards set by the website. Any assistance you could provide to that affect would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talamasca67 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC) — Talamasca67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Agree, agree with Talmasca67-- Fowler is fabulous author and accomplished composer/performer. as noted by Hekeriu-- the book review linked to is high praise for his debut novel. the guy is multi-talented, prolific artist.(Bluedillygal (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)) — Bluedillygal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP: Nick Russell Fowler is a fantastic writer and musician and is currently working on several new notable projects that I believe will be beneficial to those reading his his profile. I have read and listened to his work and am very impressed at his creativity and talent. Please allow him the opportunity to update his page with current/relevant data. I highly recommend NOT deleting him. Thank You Clwareham (UTC)June 2, 2010Clwareham (talk)CLWareham — Clwareham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Nick Russell Fowler has been a significant musician in New York City for over 18 years. In December 2009 one of his songs was on the TV show "90210" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovecatmusic (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC) — Lovecatmusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep – original AfD nomination appears to be based solely on Google. Results returned by Google are diluted when several people have the same name, and the order depends on your location (eg India), and other factors like whether you're logged in to a Google service or not. Google returns results aimed to be relevant to you, not arranged in order of notability. Our assessment of Nick Fowler's notability should not be influenced by the number of people called Nick Fowler. Fowler's first novel was published in 2002 and continues to be "in stock" at Amazon.com, and they've provided the "Click to look inside" facility, something they don't do for non-notable works. — Hebrides (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding google searching, the entry is listed as Nick Russell Fowler, but when one searches google for Nick Fowler, the wikipedia entry for Nick Russell Fowler does not show up, which erroneously skews the google reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.67.99 (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC) — 66.65.67.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I agree this is the same Nick Russel Fowler that wrote the very popular novel "A Thing or Two about Curtis and Camillia" Nick is a personal friend of mine since 1990, a former band mate and "brother" for life, I think he deserves to keep his Wikipedia page with all the creative credits he has earned. I don't get what is in question here. I am very impressed with his extensive work and he deserves the right to add to the page as he make his accomplishments. He works so hard for everything he has and is a very self-motivated person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael haar (talk • contribs) 03:00, June 2010 (UTC) — Talamasca67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I'm writing to request that you rescind your rollback of Nick Fowler's page where you state he's a non-notable person. His accomplishments make him notable and I would like his page to continue. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstachenfeld (talk • contribs) 16:52, June 2010 (UTC) — Talamasca67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I am a fan of Nick Fowler's fiction- A Thing or Two About Curtis and Camilla is one of my favorite books, and was in fact recognized as a best new fiction offering. I was curious and dismayed to find his article considered for deletion- when I was showing my sister that page I found it so flagged. Just wonder why? He is a cultural resource to know about, and we are richer for artists-- especially writers- I am biased I guess as a teacher of writing! (Bluedillygal (talk) 13:36, June 2010 (UTC)) — Talamasca67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment The !votes by Michael haar, Mstachenfeld, and Bluedillygal were actually added by the SPA Talamasca67. [1] Edward321 (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Since there has been no discussion in favor of deleting this article, and no further reasons given for its removal, the discussion should be closed, as the over all consensus is this article should remain. The nomination for AfD was also combined with recommendations for this article be better referenced, sourced and linked to. These recommendations for the article have been achieved since its nomination. It is confusing to this contributor that a nomination for AfD was combined with recommendations for improvement if the nominator thinks the article should be deleted. I hereby move the discussion be closed and the article allowed to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talamasca67 (talk • contribs) 9 June 2010 (UTC) — Talamasca67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Warning to all the new accounts who are fans of Fowler: There is a distinct feeling in my mind that WP:SOCK might be being violated, and that if I am wrong, that loads of people who don't usually edit here have been brought in for the purpose of swaying the vote. This is NOT a vote by numbers. It is a discussion by valid arguments, and I'm not seeing many - if any at all. These discussions usually last for seven days, but may last longer in the absence of suitable discussion. So far, Hebrides has made the only good argument, and the Single Purpose Accounts have come up with the usual SPA gush of enthusiasm without any solid base. Friendship doesn't count. Happening to find this deletion procedure is unlikely (but vaguely possible...). I am neutral on this issue, and would suggest that the SPAs take note of Wikipedias policies and avoid gushing enthusiasm (and also avoid using terms not understood, like rescinding rollback which is totally inapplicable to the case in point). Get some real evidence in. Peridon (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The few independent sources are blatantly misquoted in an attempt to make the subject appear notable. Based on the large number of SPAs involved and their faking of !votes by users who do not exist and have not edited this Afd, strongly recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved/added a few comments to this page that were left on Vipinhari's talk page by mistake. Please excuse me if that wasn't acceptable. Your feelings in regard to the WP:SOCK violations are only in your mind. I'd also like an explicit explination for the accusation of "sources being blatantly misquoted". Is it also a policy here to assume just because an account is new that it was created for a single purpose? Talamasca67 (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2010
It is not an official policy, but here in AfD new accounts rarely edit again, and very often say almost the same things in the same ways. My point was that there needs to be a more positive contribution before they are taken note of. Saying that he's notable because someone thinks he's the greatest, or calling for the discussion to be closed, usually mean there are no better arguments. I've taken part in many AfDs, and monitor new account edits, so believe me, I do know what I'm talking about here. And believe that I'm trying to help you. Peridon (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Your experience is duly noted and appreciated, but it is suspect to this contributor that only after a declaration for the discussion to end, was there any interest in regard to the merits of the article or to its editors/contributors. After the initial AfD 7 day discussion expired and then a subsequent relisting, an argument can be made that the latest two opinions were only interjected to give negative feedback to the discussion in support the original nomination. Throwing accusations around to well intentioned editors/contributors for being sockpuppets, gushing SPA cheerleaders and fakes won't encourage anyone to want to take part in the improvment of Wikipedia, anonymously or after the decision is made to create an account. Talamasca67 (talk) 11 June 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Please see Comment above by Edward321 (not the Delete !vote) and then tell me that I'm "Throwing accusations around to well intentioned editors/contributors" again... Peridon (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please rewind a little. We should actually be debating the notability of Nick Fowler. I suggest we all eschew argumentum ad hominem, remind ourselves that Assuming Good Faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, and resume a calm, objective and reasoned assessment of Nick Fowler against Wikipedia's notability criteria. It's all too easy to get sidetracked… — Hebrides (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Author of a notable book. The novel has 17 Google news Hits. [2] including 3 articles about it in the NYTimes, including a full signed review. [3] I have no way of judging the notability of his music. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google searches indicate a lack of notability. His book may be notable, however.--PinkBull 07:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the google searches and sources as provided in this ongoing discussion specifically DO show his meeting WP:CREATIVE per his work receiving "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Notability for his notable work IS his per guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That subsection appears to apply to "collective body of work"s, where an article about the artist would be easier to format then an article about the varied artwork. If a book is semi-notable, thus making the author semi-notable, it would make more sense to have an article about the book then an article about the author.--PinkBull 03:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that section aplies to either an individual piece of work OR a collective body of work, as long as the work (whether individual or collective) "has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". The author has that coverage and thus that notability. But I also wish to make note that there are assertions of notability within the article for things other than just the book... so my own sense is that it serves the project to have the article remain and grow and be improved through course of regular editing. And too... there is no book article in existance. If or when the book article is or might be written, the other information and assertions contained in the current BLP would have no proper place within that article about a book. I further note that within these pages we have many articles on books as well as seperate articles on their authors... so both may one day exist in this case. With respects, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like you're correct regarding the interpretation of the policy and may also be correct in your notability analysis. I'm withdrawing my initial vote.--PinkBull 06:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does need improvemnts, certainly... but I believe that it is do-able. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSIC. There is a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Location (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well... Fails WP:MUSICBIO? Maybe. He also fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:DIPLOMAT. However, failing subsidiary inclusion criteria does not in any way denigrate already meeting WP:GNG per the multiple critical reviews of his novel... thus also meeting WP:CREATIVE through the found sources as offered elsewhere in this discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the introductory sentence refers to him as a "singer/songwriter", WP:MUSIC is relevant. The article does not, however, mention anything about him being an athlete or a diplomat - thus WP:ATHLETE and WP:DIPLOMAT are irrelevant. I am also not convinced that a handful of reviews about one of his books establishes the work or the author as "significant" or "well known", particularly when there has been no commentary about the book since it came out. I am similarly unconvinced that having one bit part in one 1999 episode of the Sopranos makes him a notable actor. Tonto Tonto apparently was a musical guest on The Tonight Show but that is not enough to get him or his band past WP:MUSIC. There is no doubt that this person is ambitious, but I do not believe there is enough that qualifies as significant in-depth coverage about the subject to pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Location (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My coments were intended only to show that not meeting some guidelines does not in any way dismiss his meeting others. He already meets the instructions at WP:AUTHOR as his work as an author "has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Okay... this individual is active in many fields. Yes, his acting fails ENT, and his music may or may not meet MUSICBIO. But missing on meeting those criteria does not detract from his having met the specific language and intent of AUTHOR. With respects, that makes use of non-applicable criteria irrelevent and misleading to our discussing the notability criteria he does meet. This would make concerns over article focus a matter to be addressed through regular editing, and does not call for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nick Fowler is noteworthy author and musician. I am a member of this community! See my page on Stan Herd, another notable artist who is not Christo (Super famous) but whose work is important nonetheless!Also- I developed the Crop Art page from tiny stub last fall... so bluedillygal is not a sockpuppet, nor random passerby. 128.186.130.70 (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)— 128.186.130.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The guy wrote a great and popular book published by a major house (Knopf) and he received a full-page glowing review in the Sunday Book Review section of the NYTimes--That alone warrants inclusion. The fact that he is also a successful musician is secondary but at least interesting. Damn, that book was great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feltman (talk • contribs) 17:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Talamasca67, Clwareham, 66.65.67.99, 128.186.130.70, Feltman are single-purpose accounts created for the purposes of promotion and advocacy. They have made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vipinhari || talk 17:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The NY Times review, plus many other reviews turning up in the Google news search for his debut novel denotes him as a notable author. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr Fowler seems to be a rather talented young American writer and musician who has written a novel that was reviewed quite favorably in the NY Times Book Review some years ago, has been the lead singer of a musical group that was under contract for a major international record company, and has been a professional writer of music for performers in the American C&W genre. According to sources, he continues to write fiction and music, and continues to perform, all at a high level. I wonder why would anyone suggest that information about this young man and his work is neither noteworthy nor of interest as his career develops. Avi5000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avi5000 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC) — Avi5000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep Comment – in addition to my "Keep" comments above (5th June) about his 2002 novel that is still in stock at Amazon (with "Click to look inside"), I have just been listening to his album "Short of Grace" on Spotify. A Google search for |"Nick Fowler" "short of grace"| shows it is also on iTunes and available from Amazon. I consider that taken together these present sufficient evidence of notability to warrant a place for this article on Wikipedia.
  • Comment – the notion that the notability of Mr Fowler is somehow reduced by comments on this page by SPAs is ridiculous. At best, their contributions may add some evidence of notability; at worst they may be irrelevant or biased and should be ignored in our assessment of this matter. Let us base our assessment on real facts and simply ignore anything that doesn't contribute in a valid way to this discussion. We all know it’s not a vote. — Hebrides (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep This might not have been brought here if the nominator was perhaps more thorough in his searches so as to elminate the false positives caused by Fowler having a common name... but I can understand the difficulty he may have faced. However, as a musican, software engineer, actor and author, I note his receiving coverage for his work in multiple multiple sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Washington Post, Cahners Business Information, New York Times, Entertainment Weekly Also worth noting is that he's written for Metal Edge, Teen Beat, and other notable magazines, and has appeared on The Tonight Show and The Sopranos et al.[4][5] While the article might well benefit from some cleanup, that would seem a matter for regular editing and not deletion. Failing subsidiary guidelines does not mater one bit if already passing GNG. And though neutrally notified of this discussion,[6] I am not a SPA and this is my own researched and guideline supported opinion. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:24, 19 June 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Russell_Fowler&oldid=1138162215"