Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herminio Brau del Toro


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 15:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Herminio Brau del Toro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography of a nice guy that lived a beautiful life. But his notability is not established at all. damiens.rf 17:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to fail WP:PROF (I see only a few cites on Google Scholar), but I'll ping User:Randykitty for a second opinion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. He was president of the Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association, that in itself carries notability. Also he was president of Puerto Rico Distillers on of the largest Rum distilleries of the time.  He was a notable industrialist. El Johnson (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Besides being a notable industrialist, he was also a notable engineer and a notable lawyer. Suggestion is to do a search for "Herminio Brau" so that you can see the vast amount of literature where he is mentioned in many different facets: Google search with the terms 'Herminio Brau'. This is one of those cases where it will be difficult to find online biographies about the subject simply because of the era in which he lived. Suggestion is to contact the Puerto Rico National Library, the Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association, the National Foundation for Popular Culture, or the University of Puerto Rico where they will have literature about him for sure in their conventional non-digitalized libraries. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Two PhD's, another degree in Law, president of the Puerto Rico Distillers Association, several publicatiosn to his name, more than three WP:RS about the guy. Notability has been established. Mercy11 (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as the provided reliable sources qualifies him under the WP:BASIC and GNG.  Alex discussion ★ 09:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I had a look at this article in reaction to the ping by Piotrus. I see nothing that makes Brau pass WP:ACADEMIC. Having degrees (even multiple ones) or having published does not establish notability either. The "Puerto Rico Distillers Association" does not seem to be the kind of organization where every president is automatically notable. As for the four sources currently in the article, I have no access to the first one, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume that this gives a more than in-passing treatment. Reference 2 is just a simple list of presidents of a fraternity. Reference 3 is just an in-passing mention on a source that may or may not be an RS. Reference 4 is a type-written list of (rather minor) scholarships. In sum, I see at most one RS (assuming ref. is gives substantial treatment to the subject, but the contents of the other three references don't make me too optimistic), which is not enough for WP:GNG. I see no other guideline that might be applicable. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree on at least one point. GNG does not in absolute terms require multiple sources. It only says they are "generally"(ie normally) expected. To give an extreme example, a 200 page book on a topic would clearly be significant coverage of that topic (as long as it wasn't full of rubbish), even if it was the only (idependent, reliable and secondary) source that dealt with that topic. James500 (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. But given the foregoing, I don't think that the one book reference here would be enough to satisfy GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Then why not just mark it and move on? Mercy11 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ????? What do you mean? WP:GNG is not applicable to stubs or something like that? --Randykitty (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being an influential local figure is not enough for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC).
 * How are you defining "local"? Mercy11 (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, subject seems to be covered by multiple independent and reliable sources, thus meets WP:GNG. Only a weak !vote as the sources are in Spanish and my ability with that language is weak.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep  The subject is an influential figure in Pueto Rico and sources in the article are enough to establish GNG. --Jmundo (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.