Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harri Lorenzi

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. JForget 01:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harri Lorenzi[edit]

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

No sources identified to verify points apparently establishing notability made in the article; WP:GNG therefore applies. Scoop100 (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Scholar and Google Book searches bring up hundreds of publications /by/ him. Third-party reliable sources /about/ him are a little thinner on the ground, but here are two:
1. Guide to standard floras of the world, page 349: "Since 1992, however, Harri Lorenzi has been producing an attractive series of well-illustrated , all-color dendrological atlases worthy of note here."
2. Conservation education and outreach techniques, page 362: "The sale of guidebooks can generate income for local organisations. A plant guide, Trees of Brazil—Arvores Brasilieras was produced in Brazil by author Harri Lorenzi. Researchers use the book for reference. The high quality photographs and large format also makes the book popular among middle class people with an interest in nature. Lorenzi directs a private research institute funded through the sale of the guides. The proceeds of book sales fund employment of four scientist and an airplane for botanical research in the Amazon." This is cited to the Lawrence and Hawthorne (2006), Plant Identification: User friendly Guides for biodiversity management, so that's a third source.

There also appear to be quite a few sources in Portuguese, but I can't read them. Hesperian 00:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: For some of them, I think there was little update, the remaining parts of the article needs to be wikified, some of the sentences to be properly written and not from machine translations. A part of it will be rewritten with translations not messy made from a machine on a special page. After the sentences has been corrected, it will be pasted to the article. For some articles that has not made proper sentence in years should have the sentences corrected. I am not sure it will be kept once after some of the sentences are corrected and portions of the article redone removing remains of machine translation sections. Some of the articles that were machine translated should be redone and properly translated without incorrect sentences. Pumpie (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With GS cites of 1666, 506, 436, 274 and h index = 12 he appears to satisfy WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. As well as the highly cited publications satisfying WP:PROF criterion 1, the subject appears to pass the general notability guideline based on the Google News search linked above, with, for example, these articles being devoted to him. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), primarily based on the citation impact of his six top cited publications. All of these have more than 150 citations in GS. The most cited publication looks like a book, single-authored by him, with 1,666 citations in GS.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just add the necessary information brought out above. The nom could have easily found most of it also. WP:BEFORE should be a requirement whenever it is applicable, to discourage nomination without checking. (it may help people realize that we do not delete because an article has no references, only because we cannot find them after a good search). DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. So no more time is wasted. Clearly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an expert on Brazilian plant species, and it seems co-wrote Weeds of the United States and their control‎. Abductive (reasoning) 03:14, 4 December 2009 (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.