Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Lowe (classicist)


 * 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. In keeping with prior consensus, academics can be considered notable based on coverage of their works, without requiring significant independent biographical coverage of the person. RL0919 (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Nick Lowe (classicist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No nontrivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. —Kodiologist (t) 22:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I just cut the indiscriminate publication list down to books only, and added eight independent published and in-depth reviews of three books (one of them an edited volume). I think it's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * keep. passes WP:NAUTHOR with multiple books and multiple (specialist) reviews. --hroest 18:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep this author seems obviously notable. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since all the above comments are talking about notability, I think it's worth emphasizing that I'm not suggesting deletion on grounds of notability, but on the basis that there seems to be little to no information from reliable sources about Lowe himself, as opposed to his works. Thus, how would we write a proper biography of him? —Kodiologist (t) 01:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? This reference from the article appears to be an example of an in-depth reliable source about the subject. It is not independent, but since you explicitly say you are not concerned about notability but rather about the existence of reliable sources, that should not concern you. In any case we now also have eight in-depth reliable independent sources about his books; surely, if he is to be notable as a writer, it is more important to have content about his writing than about his favorite restaurants, family life, or whatever other non-writing content you think sources should provide. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I have my policies confused, but I thought that independence from the subject is a concern for verifiability and reliability, not just notability. Coverage of a writer's writing is necessary for a biography of a writer, but not sufficient. —Kodiologist (t) 09:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is for a write but in general not for an academic or professor, if WP:NPROF applies here then the sources dont need to be independent. --hroest 17:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2021 (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.