Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas 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 keep‎. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Lowe[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Editor invoked WP:DRAFTOBJECT but the article has too many problems which impinge upon notability. UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and England. UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ President of the US Academy of Dermatology would be a notable position. Could use a rewrite, but that's not for AfD to worry about. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I misred the article, the dermatology prize seems non-notable, being elected to the society I don't think gives notability as I believe it's needed to be in clinical practice in the field. Would perhaps have a chance with academic notability, based on his citation factors. I'll leave it for others to determine that. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could make a case for "Keep". The citation record is particularly good. He has 61 papers with more than 100 citations which would make him eminenly notable. His book publishing record is also excellent. He would easily pass WP:NAUTHOR. I understand UtherSRG's sentiment around the references and coi aspect. When you do a image search using Bing image search which is powered by OpenAI ChatGPT now, it doesn't turn up anything on the image, not does Google Image search which is equally powered by AI. Not that it makes a difference. If that image was present it would show in a New York second. The guy is standing in his own study. They're is just no way that image was taken, unless there was some kind of coi or fundamental relationship. It could be a student but more likely a UPE article and UPE editor. The subject is a heavy-weight academic. Obviously, he couldn't wait until a real article was created. I would suggest either stubifying the articles or getting rid of everything that is WP:PRIMARY and do a copyedit to find secondary sources. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't confirm his date of birth either, so that would have to go. scope_creep^Talk 08:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mess. Its needs stubbed more than anything else. scope_creep^Talk 08:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given all that, wouldn't deletion and start from scratch be better? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is promo in bits that is one more thing. I could do a stub. scope_creep^Talk 11:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I would say the subject is notable considering he has wrote over 450 research papers and 19 books, won five awards, was president of the British Cosmetic Dermatology Group. He is also mentioned in media outlets, [1][2]. I think the article needs to be improved rather than deleted. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is non-rs . It is not a reliable source. The guardian is a paid for product promotion,,so it is not a real source. It is PR. Picking up random mentions in the press doesn't work here and you will called out everytime. scope_creep^Talk 15:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:PROF with his papers cited 20,792 times according to Scholar. I don't know what too many problems which impinge upon notability means but WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meets all the criterion of WP:PROF and appears to be notable by those standards. I join the others in voting to Keep this article. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His publications and citations give him NPROF (and probably NAUTHOR). Probably a UPE job (although it has been in development since 2015, so maybe COI). The text seems fine now, just a statement of facts. Not particularly problematic. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2023 (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.