Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Lagasca

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. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Lagasca[edit]

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

Non-notable, only a single source from 1858 used. Creator is a banned user. Athenean (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Really quite notable. Cited moderately in scholarly works, and he was the director of Real Jardín Botánico de Madrid. It appears from the Spanish WP article that there is a statue of him there. Meets the WP:PROF guideline without breaking sweat. A definite keeper. Brilliantine (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching Google includes many citations, such as this (if you're like me and don't have JSTOR, you can only see a little bit in a Google preview) of his works. Seems to have been what today we'd consider a prominent and well-published scholar. Notability should often be treated differently for long-past subjects — we don't often run into the problem of people adding articles promoting people or groups that have been gone for 150 years like we do about contemporary people or groups. Yes, this was created in violation of a ban, but I don't see deletion of this otherwise valid article for that reason as helping the encyclopedia, so let's overlook that for now. Nyttend (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, for a fuller list of sources, look at his German Wikipedia article. Nyttend (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the statue in the photo is really him, then I would argue that this is a step toward notability. Regardless, I agree with the arguments above. I have added a "refimprove" tag to the article because that's what it really needs, not an AfD. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gscholar turns up enough on him e.g [1], to show he passes the GNG, with works specifically or largely on him, no necessity for WP:PROF citation counting and the like.John Z (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to meet WP:PROF due to the citations. I'd argue he likely passes WP:ANYBIO as well. The article should probably be expanded as opposed to deleted. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:15, 23 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.