Deletion of Tim Bowles (4th nomination)

Comment: It's simple: does this guy meet ? The guideline tells us to consider "the depth of coverage" - and the additional sources seem to mention Bowles in a line or two, at most. I still don't see that he's been the subject of ''non-trivial'' coverage in "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." He is not automatically notable just because his firm is - see . The prior AfD's have not generated a consensus (they've all been closed as "no consensus", not "keep"), so relisting is not as inappropriate as some of the above comments suggest
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: It is important to note that a number '''but not all''' Keep votes in all his AfDs are bloc voting by anti-Scientologists that seem to be invoking the ''"but he is a Scientologist"'' hidden clause of . This clause states that depth of coverage need not be considered if the subject of a  is a Scientologist. Obviously I am being sardonic and I am not going to go into my suppositions as to why anti-Scientologists vote this way. You can spot the bloc by looking at common voters in previous AfDs. And yes, Scientologists vote in a bloc too and I am sure that anti-Scientologists can come up with a mirror-image sardonic "reason". I do not know if this is the "partisan shenanigans" referred to by the closing admin in the 3rd AfD. I am nom for the 3rd AfD and still believe that his prior work as an attorney does not meet notability for this project. However, as Director of Youth for Human Rights, it is possible that he will at some point in the possibly near future be the subject of sufficient non-trivial coverage and an article can be created for him at that time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BLP)

Comment: The independent references look to be trivial with respect to their treatment of ''him'' specifically.  Seems like there's a decent argument for notability the of Bowles and Moxon firm, but I don't see anything that establishes him as notable aside from that.  If his name really wound up getting out there in these Scientology cases, then I guess I wouldn't have a problem with the encyclopedia being able to respond to his name being entered here.  But from what I can see, even if that's allowed, it would be better for the page resulting from entering Bowles's name to be that of the law firm, rather than be a bio of someone who doesn't seem to really meet  &mdash; at least not judging by what I see cited in the article (again, because what is cited in the article is trivial with respect to Bowles individually
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)