Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lowe

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 delete. Sandstein 19:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lowe[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be any verifiable claim of notability in this article. The author of most of the content on this page has a WP:COI since he claims to be the subject of this article. Also, this page appears to be largely, if not entirely, promotional as it is almost wholly dedicated to discussing his achievements and contains links to his website and twitter. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 02:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restart if better as WP:TNT as I was actually going to suggest keeping considering his numerous asteroids but given that this has existed since March 2005 with never much better improvement and my searches finding nothing better than this and this, there's not much to suggest better improvement even if we attempted it. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG - SwisterTwister's analysis is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. A whole lot of fluffy claims supported by not a shred of evidence. Not very scientific, nicht wahr? Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:16, 8 October 2015 (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.