Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Lowrie

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 Speedy Keep. Nom banned for sock puppetry, all other arguments are for Keep or Speedy Keep, and bulk of articles nominated argues for SK 2a (Vexatious nominations). Non-admin closure. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Lowrie[edit]

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

~~article appears to file WP:GNG and does little to establish notability. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs clean up, not deletion. Lowrie is notable as an author of influential books on the carnivorous flora of Australia and for describing dozens of new Drosera and Stylidium species. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. As the article indicates, the subject has written a standard scholarly reference work published by a university press, a clear and unrefuted assertion of notability. The nomination statement makes plain that the nominator has not even made a cursory effort to assess the subject's actual notability, but instead believes that lousy articles on notable subjects should be deleted rather than improved. This belief is clearly contrary to applicable deletion policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: In another of these complete failures to do even the most cursory of checks as WP:BEFORE enjoins, I have just one bit of evidence to proffer: if you have doubt on the notability of the subject, do click the link in this AfD to Google Scholar. 'Nuf ced. Ravenswing 04:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the author of a major reference work and other publications. -- 202.124.89.4 (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also removed the vote from the nominator's nomination. Crtew (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SK 2a The closer should keep in mind the large number of nominations made on a large, diverse set of articles that the nominator made on the same day.Crtew (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2013 (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.