Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Laserna


 * 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. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Roberto Laserna

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I can't find significant coverage for this person. Fails both WP:CREATIVE and WP:PROFESSOR. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete this non notable biography. --Stormbay (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject seems to be an expert and respected authority in the field of sociological and economic research in the South America. I found only brief biographical mentions about him, , , but a large number of publications and citations at Google Books, Google Scholar, WorldCat indicate the importance of this scientist. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Widely quoted in major media as an expert, not just in his own language but in the Christian Science Monitor, Boston Globe , New York Times , Newsweek , and BBC News . These aren't nontrivial sources about him but I think they indicate a pass of WP:PROF #7. The article we have is short and factual and although it is currently unsourced the sorts of things it says look like they should be easily sourceable. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: meets notablilty by all the sources given above; WP:N: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Dewritech (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per the references provided above.--Technopat (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to close this "keep" as that is the consensus but seeing that the article is currently unsourced (but sourcable), I recommend that it be userfied or incubated and then moved back into mainspace when sourced. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2010 (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.