Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Ogilvie


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 20:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence Ogilvie

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Although on the face of this the article is well referenced, none of the references nor the content of the article assert why the subject is notable. Wikipedia is not a place for documenting one's family tree as the article's author seems to be trying to do with this and William Paton Ogilvie (which is also AfD nominated) Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 18:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete At least the author provided a lot of references this time. However, I have to agree with Bob: The references may back up the factual content, but do not establish notability. I think just about anyone working in a scientific field could generate such an article about themselves even if less than 100 people knew about them. The closest this subject gets to notability is "first plant pathologist of Bermuda" but even then, it's quite a stretch. Can we get an article about the first Sanitation Technician of Zimbabwe? You know, the dude who cleans Mugabe's toilets? As Bob said, notability hasn not been proven, so I'm going with Delete. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There is room for these types of articles - he seems to have achieved a lot.  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 13:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  —Mais oui! (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Contrary to the nomination, notability is asserted: "he was the leading British expert[9] on the diseases of cereal crops and vegetables." Ref [9] is the Forward to his book so its independence may be questionable, but I've also found the following review of the book in Nature that confirms that he was certainly a leading expert, if not the leading expert:
 * "This is the second edition of the now well-known bulletin on diseases of vegetables written by Mr L. Ogilvie, advisory mycologist for the Ministry of Agriculture's western province... Among the expert mycologists comprising the Ministry's team of advisers, no one is more fitted than Mr Ogilvie to write this bulletin... Long years of experience coupled with his considerable number of investigations into many diseases of vegetables have given Mr. Ogilvie such knowledge of the problems which arise in the successful cultivation of vegetables as to render his advice extremely valuable to growers of these crops. ... It is an extremely well set up publication which every grower of vegetable crops ought to have. The information it contains is written by an expert..."
 * --Qwfp (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

1. His saving the economy of Bermuda in the 1920s (when agriculture, and particularly the export of lilies to the USA) was the major industry -- long before significant tourism became the major Bermuda industry.
 * Keep. The two major benefits to the world of Lawrence Ogilvie were:

2. The UK if not European expert on the diseases of vegetables and wheat -- vital during WW2 years.Duncanogi (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Few cites in GS for work in obscure field done before Web2.0. but notable for applications of his work and regarded as an authority. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Never mind Web 2.0, his work predates Web 0.2 ... Qwfp (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sufficient career accomplishment to merit inclusion. Nicely done page. Ignore All Rules = Use Common Sense.  Carrite (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with nom about documenting one's entire family tree. However, nominating the entire family tree for deletion is equally flawed. This is the one to keep. Anarchangel (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Oustanding scientist, well referenced, and notable for the reasons given by Qwfp. (Note to article author: the lead should be expanded to include why he is interesting and notable, and—eventually—to comply with WP:LEDE). --NSH001 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the Nature review clearly establishes notability, in exactly the terms of WP:PROF.    DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reference NSH001's Note to author. I heartily agree with your comment. My IBM employer for 30 years always required a succinct management summary. I wrote one for this article but it was deleated by someone. Wikipedia needs "management" summaries for all articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.29.36 (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2011 (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.