Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enrique Máximo García


 * 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   No consensus to delete. There have been good arguments on both sides of the debate, but what it comes down to is that this is either a borderline notability case, or an article that hasn't had time to develop in order to explain the reason why we need an article on Enrique Máximo García. In neither case is that reason for deletion right now. There is no clear consensus for deletion, though there is concern that the subject of the article hasn't had the notability explained and substantiated. Those interested in keeping this article are advised to help develop it.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Enrique Máximo García

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable academic as far as I can tell. R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - The Spanish Wikipedia article has 8 references. I don't have time to look at the at the moment.  Linguist At Large  23:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Could you point out exactly the problem about this article? Thanks for time and for your advice KlaiverUser talk:Klaiver 00: 20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Response - The article must establish notability, for example, according to WP:Prof or WP:N. It is not taken for granted; it must be demonstrated.  There is no claim in the article of any major accomplishments.  This AfD nomination does not remotely imply he was a bad person or led a life without merit.  It simply questions whether he should be included in this encyclopedia. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Response - As you stated, this is an encyclopedia, and the main function of an encyclopedia is compilating all the knowledge mankind can gather and put it in disposal of everyone who could be interested or need it. Maybe in your environment, the person who my article talks about doesn't mind much, but in my whereabouts, he is an important character in our local culture, and the only reason for me to make an article about him in english is to make this information available for an ample range of people. I would be very grateful if you respected my point of view, so I could share this information with as much people as possible. KlaiverUser talk:Klaiver 01: 25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Noone here is disrespecting your point of view. This process is not about points of view; it is about finding a consensus regarding verifiability, which is an objective state.  Please review WP:CIVIL, namely where it recommends refraining from "ill-considered accusations of impropriety." Thanks. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason for having policies like those I mentioned above is to try to encourage more objective decision making. It's the article's responsibility for establishing notability.  If he is a major figure, you should have no trouble finding sources that satisfy WP:Prof or WP:N.  As it stands, the article doesn't come close to meeting either of those standards as it's currently written.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 01:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep--Meets WP:Prof and WP:N. I ofer you an "automatically translated" version of the Spanish sources:|en|El%2520mundo%2520de%2520la%2520cultura%2520y%2520la%2520universidad%2520despide%2520al%2520music%25C3%25B3logo%2520Enrique%2520M%25C3%25A1ximo 1 2--Jmundo (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I read all 8 articles cited on the Spanish WP page. I saw nothing that satisfied WP:Prof in any of them.  Could you be more specific as to what you're relying on?  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 01:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He clearly meets WP:N and he also meets criteria #7 of WP:Prof. The source is a major newspaper in Spain and the articles are about his death and the legacy of his work.--Jmundo (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think we'll end up just disagreeing on this, e.g., I have no idea what impact he's had outside his field. Best. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 02:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Gonna go with RandomHumanoid on this one. Doesn't appear to meet WP:Prof or WP:N. I don't think inclusiveness has to mean "include every academic who did his job well." I'm an academic, and I do my job reasonably well, I hope, but I can say without hesitation that as of this moment I do not merit a page. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At this moment are you the subject of a national newspaper article? --Jmundo (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As some of those article are obituaries, one hopes not. Regardless, these unquestionably minor articles do not satisfy the criteria outlined in WP:N or WP:Prof.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 04:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obituaries (as opposed to paid-for death notices) are amongst the best sort of press articles for establishing notability. Their existence means that the editorial judgement has been made that a subjects are important enough for their lives to be noted. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was once pictured on the front page of the business section of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, but that was just a lucky break. Jlg4104 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - as mentioned, it fails the applicable policies. It was asserted above that the subject specifically meets WP:PROF criterion #7:  "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity."  That is not asserted in either the article or the translated verdad sources. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another national newspaper article highlights one of his investigations. --Jmundo (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how that constitutes "impact outside academia." -Seidenstud (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm wrong but discovering "one of the few musical instruments held in Spain in the period of the Enlightenment" is notable for me. We don't need to argue about if he meets or doesn't meet WP:Prof, because the references from the national media establish his notability per wp:notable. If he was an American professor probably we would not have this discussion.--Jmundo (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Chairman of a department at major university is professional recognition of notability as an expert in the subject.  But the spanish article does indicate rather well the basis of the notability and the main problem here is that the english article needs to be expanded., DGG (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does anything say he was chairman of the dept? In the obit in La Verdad, it simply says he was "profesor del departamento de Historia del Arte de la Universidad de Murcia," namely that he was a professor in the art history department.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 06:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —John Z (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 *  KeepNeutral  Although I don't really speak Spanish, the last line of [this] shows that he occupied a named chair, satisfying criterion 5 of WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This one is hard to figure this one out, as Manuel Pérez Sánchez, the honorific of his supposed named chair, is also on the faculty of the Art History dept. at Murcia.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 15:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed my vote to neutral given the doubt about the named chair. Whether or not he was department chair, that fact alone does not establish notability in my eyes. I abstain until further evidence crops up. --Crusio (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This translated article from the Spanish Wikipedia was created at 23:26 and was nominated for  deletion  at 23:35 the same day, WP:DEADLINE. --Jmundo (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Enrique Máximo graduated in chemistry in the University of Murcia, he was mathematics teacher and musicology proffesor, he studied "organería" for years and this was the reason that made him able to be the "Festival de Organo de la Catedral de Murcia" (Organ Festival of Cathedral of Murcia, very important in Region of Murcia) director for many years. He also was responsable of REPSOL-UNESCO proyect for latin american music (para la música de Latinoamérica).[(references from the Mazarrón city hall on this link)]. Apartt from it, as Crusio said he was member of Real Diputación San Andrés de los Flamencos. Words of the King of Spain, H.M. Juan Carlos I, to the Real Diputación. As Mundo has stated, his research proyects had very succesful results. According to all this data, we can say that he made a work in several branches of science that is unanimously recogniced in Region of Murcia => example: Santiago Delgado (Literature Professor and writter) homage. One thing more, I don´t understand why RandomHumanoid has deleted a large part of this article. I understand the matter of the discussion, but i don´t understand why some references and parts of ther article have been deleted. Thanks for your time and attenttion. --Klaiver (talk)15:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I'm a new page patroller on occasion. I read the Spanish WP page before cleaning up the English page.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 16:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm on the keep side of the fence for now. "Enrique Máximo García" shows up in Google Scholar ; he has published one book, collaborated on 4 others and published some magazine articles, . Concerning the book he wrote, it can be found at several libraries, including the Smithsonian, the British Library and university libraries: , , ,  (more can probably be found if needed). So, depending how we define "many", this author has his work in "in many significant libraries", thus meeting the criterion 4.d of WP:CREATIVE for authors. "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries."  Linguist At Large  22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The existence of substantial coverage in reliable sources is exactly what is required by WP:N. Once the subject passes that guideline there's no need to argue about which criteria of WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE or WP:ANYTHINGELSE he may or may not get through. The editors of the publications cited have made the decision that the subject is notable, and our practice is to defer to those decisions rather than try to make our own subjective judgements. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Can you specifically explain, with citations, how the subject satisfies WP:N? This is a far more extreme claim than saying he satisfies WP:Prof. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, he doesn't meet WP:N. Even though the sources are reliable and independent, in my opinion, they do not offer significant coverage of the subject. As I noted above, I think he does meet WP:CREATIVE for authors.  Linguist At <b style="color:#600;">Large</b> </b> 19:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is not a extreme claim saying he meets WP:Prof. His academic research, Google Scholar, is cited in secondary sources and has clearly had a significant impact in the community 1, 2.--Jmundo (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that GScholar search mostly renders works by others and the few works from EM Garcia that have been cited score below 10. That's really negligible. --Crusio (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Meets criteria #7: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.--Jmundo (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The citations showing how the subject meets WP:N are in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete insufficiently notable for inclusion per WP:N. Eusebeus (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As Phil Bridger, I think he has the enough notability required by WP:N --Rocy (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC) — Rocy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete In the end, I am coming down to delete on this one. Of the 4 references given in the article, 3 are from local newspapers (La Verdad and La Opinión de Murcia), 1 from a website of the regional office of "Patrimonio Historico" (I can translate that into French, but not really in English). Two of the journal articles only mention EMG in connection with the localization of a piano forte of a local composer (and one of the few instruments to survive from that time in Spain), one is an obituary. The website of the regional historical office only mentions him in connection with a CD of works of another composer. I find that these sources fail to establish notability according to WP:N and, as already remarked above, there is not enough evidence to meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * La Verdad.es is not your local newspaper, it covers the cities of Murcia, Albacete, Alicante. Population total:	920,000. For an individual you consider non-notable, his actions (like the localization one of the few instruments to survive from that time in Spain) got a good deal of coverage from the local newspaper. More evidence of notability: 1, 2.--Jmundo (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * La Verdad.es is a newspaper from Región of Murcia (1.425.000), Alicante (province) (1.800.000), and Albacete (province) (390.000), not just from that cities. Population total: 3.615.000. Definitely, La Verdad.es is not your local newspaper. --Klaiver (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As anyone who has done more than simply switched gates at an airport in Spain knows, the main papers are national, viz ABC, El Mundo, El Pais. Simply throwing aggregate population numbers is absurd; La Verdad is certainly a respectable paper, but this kind of wanton exaggeration simply weakens your point. Find significant coverage in El Pais and then get back to us. Eusebeus (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that the only source from Spain we can use in Wikipedia is "El Pais". It's like saying that the only reliable source from United States is the New York Times. I agree La Verdad is certainly a respectable paper that meets the criteria for independent secondary source.--Jmundo (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody has claimed that La Verdad is not a respectable independent secundary source. It certainly can be used to source information included in an article. However, as it is not a national newspaper, articles in it only contribute in a minor way to establishing notability, IMHO. In addition, from the paper's website it appears that there are 3 separate editions for the 3 regions that it serves, further weakening its impact. --Crusio (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BIAS: "Availability of sources is not uniform....Notability is more difficult to establish in non-Anglophone topics because of a lack of English sources and no incentive among anglophone participants to find sources in the native language of the topic."--Jmundo (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't think that WP:BIAS applies here. Nobody here has complained about the fact that all sources are in Spanish or that sources in English are missing. I am not a native English speaker myself and very much aware of biases in WP against other languages. But I see absolutely no evidence of that here. Please, WP:AGF. --Crusio (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, I should concentrate in looking for more sources. My new search so far: This one is from the periodical "Epoca" describing the subject as a national expert 1; another article says "Maximo has been working in an "important and instrumental  rescue" for Latin America 2. More sources are available, and I will continue to look.--Jmundo (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, I should concentrate in looking for more sources. My new search so far: This one is from the periodical "Epoca" describing the subject as a national expert 1; another article says "Maximo has been working in an "important and instrumental  rescue" for Latin America 2. More sources are available, and I will continue to look.--Jmundo (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Eusebeus and Crusio. I'd reconsider if someone could improve the article to clarify notability. -- Klein zach  10:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has just been improved, but i´m still working on it. --Klaiver (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly Keep I don't think this article deserves this witch hunt it has undergone. There are thousands of articles about nonsense, thousands of stubs and thousands of articles with false references or information which aren't being persecuted so exhaustively. This article has proved its right to be in the wikipedia, as the articles in spanish and italian haven't caused any problems, as well as the author has received several congratulations for them. It is shameful that some people put such a great effort for this article to be deleted according to some terms of notability, as if it were the score in a contest. All the information given for this article is true an extensive enough, an can be fully contrasted with its sources,so I can't understand the aversion of some people who want this article deleted for a pair of clauses of a bureaucratic form. If you are trying to base the deletion of the article in the failure to fulfill WP: N or WP:ACADEMIC, you must also refer to the non-online sources, because all the complaints given here just cover the information that can be found on the Internet. Looking up on libaries, newspaper libraries and other physical sources I'm sure we can find enough data to fulfill WP:N and WP:ACADEMIC. So, before accusing of lack of evidences, please consult ALL the sources, not only the convenient ones.--Lorgar (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC) — Lorgar (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.