Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David W. Lowry


 * 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. joe deckertalk 18:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

David W. Lowry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP currently as WP:COATRACK for invention "SpinePort". Quick BLP search books: no, news: no, scholar: yes. May need assessing against WP:PROF, but... Taking to AfD due to invention needing WP:MEDRS which it currently fails, and BLP fails V. (note paid COI, blocked creator) Widefox ; talk 13:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional article by a blocked paid editor. Not sufficient coverage of to meet GNG. J bh  Talk  14:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 01:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources are not independent and high-profile enough to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. And with only one publication that has over 100 citations in Google scholar (and a middle position in the author list of that paper), in a high-citation field, I don't see much of a case for WP:PROF either. So even ignoring the promotional aspects of the article, I don't see much of a reason to keep it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - 's analysis hits the nail on the head.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.