Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lowe (2nd nomination)

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lowe

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

Note that first deletion discussion pertained to an unrelated geophysicist, and is thus irrelevant to this discussion. This article is a WP:BLP of a YouTube personality, with no substantive claim of notability for that: no number of subscribers on any social media platform, even an impressive number, confers an automatic inclusion freebie on a personality who is not the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. But apart from one of his own self-published YouTube videos, the only other source here is an article on Storify — which is not an RS, doesn't support half the content in this article, and only just barely escapes being a blurb in terms of length. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Fails WP:BLP. There is no reason to have an article on a non-notable Youtube personality. Delta13C (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the author has added references. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, he has not added references since the start of this AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article has had no new references added at all, but is still parked on the same two references I already addressed in the original nomination statement: one of his own YouTube videos, which cannot support notability as it's a primary source, and a blurby article on Storify, which cannot support notability as it's an unreliable source. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, some confusion on my part at WT:AFD, I didn't realise the author was referring to a BLPPROD. I agree these are not suitable references. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BLP policy due to lack of reliable sources, as well as all relevant notability guidelines. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to a lack of reliable sources to meet the notability guideline. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2016 (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.