Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert William Lawrence

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert William Lawrence[edit]

non-notable; no claim of notability Ling.Nut 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- Google search provided only the wikipedia hit [1]. Kukini 18:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ not notable. Nickieee 19:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Keep as it is now. Nickieee 20:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the article, Lawrence was Tasmania's first botanist. Sir William Jackson Hooker, the Regius Professor of Botany at the University of Glasgow, named a species of flower ‘Correa lawrenciana’ in honour of Lawrence. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up Google searches are irrelevant for historical figures - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Article needs to lose the memorial site tone and get references, but the first botanist in Tasmania absolutely made an enduring historical contribution, which is a WP:BIO reason for keeping. Google scholar search proves the species exists quite handily, this Google Book search proves enough sources exist for a valid article, this page proves the basic facts (sign-in to Google books required). GRBerry 02:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important enough figure that there should be something about him available on the Internet---and no better place than WP. Ngio 07:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ngio and above comments. RFerreira 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Of course there aren't Google hits for a 19th century botanist! Historical figures with verifiable sources. Wikipedia is not paper. :) Dlohcierekim 01:07, 7 September 2006 (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.