Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/James Bowery - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Avraham (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 23 February 2006 ([]: Weak keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:00, 23 February 2006 by Avraham (talk | contribs) ([]: Weak keep)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

James Bowery

Dubious claims, may be vanity or hoax sannse (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

- Delete - not notable, and am doubtful about the claims. --149.169.52.67 01:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

- Keep - Misplaced Pages must Keep this article. Bowery is a very interesting man, a United States patent holder in rocket science-related areas, sponsors space prizes out of his own pocket, and spends most of his time researching and writing with notable acclaim and is very controversial, hence someone voted for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Better_Than_You_At_Everything (talkcontribs)

- Delete - He invented e-mail, PostScript, VR and chat, and he's the closest living relative to the Kennewick man? Should we also list every guy who believes he's Napoleon? Fan1967 02:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Even with the self-promotional personality described in the webpage he only has around 800 google hits, and only about 200 for google groups. Seems to be a highly non-notable self-promoting megalomaniac. JoshuaZ Keep, bu02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain Try searching under 'Jim Bowery' instead; over 4000 hits for author:'Jim Bowery'. Bowery is a net.kook of great vintage, but he attempts to hide his history. This article wasn't written by him, either, but by his detractors (except for the small revision by JABowery). Since I count myself among his detractors, I abstain. Rpresser 06:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Also don't forget need to delete his redirect Baldrson also. JoshuaZ 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cyde Weys 04:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and watch - had to think long and hard on this one - to my mind he is more notable than not but article does read like a vanity page. Nothing stopping those interested in adjusting the article style and linking to what appears to be a number of notable external links. If we can have a other loopy articles we can have this one but it needs to be de-vanity(ised)! VirtualSteve 06:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep This needs to be NPOV'ed as the article mentions merely in passing the subject's contribution to the Internet and electronic comms whilst dwelling on the shadier aspects of the biography. I don't feel that this is truly representative of the subject as it currently stands.  (aeropagitica)  07:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote I can't find evidence that he invented PostScript, although he did write a document analyzing PostScript's evolution from FORTH; Google results for PostScript "jim bowery". If this gets kept, it will need to be rewritten for POV, as the current version seems to really downplay his White Nationalist views; see , also (straight from the horse's mouth) . ergot 16:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep There are some things that ring true. For example, he is listed here http://www.platopeople.com/people.html so there is some corroboration of evidence. He is actually the rightmost person on the third picture in the second row here: http://www.platopeople.com/index.html Much of the other claims are unverified; even the author, Bowery, is offering rewards for disproof of his claims. It is possible that some of the emails may be fake, but as much of his claims come from being highly involved with the PLATO system, and that has been coroborrated, it should be kept, with the caveat that it needs further verification, IMO Avi 17:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)