Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pascual Izquierdo Egea

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Pascual Izquierdo Egea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I was initially going to suggest that this article simply be transwikied to the Spanish Wikipedia, but since a Spanish version of the article already exists, this should be deleted instead. Not only is most of it in Spanish, but all the sources come from the subject's own book. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Each language's Wikipedia is its own autonomous project with its own policies for among other things inclusion in the encyclopedia, but does the fact that the Spanish Wikipedia has an article on this subject (when they'd be the first, logically, to publish one) say something of his notability? If no reliable sources independent of the subject exist, then fine (I notice they don't even on the es.wikipedia article), but maybe they just haven't looked any harder than anyone here has. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 05:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just restored the AfD tag which had been removed. I don't know much about this field, so I have not searched for possible sources for notability. The article is pretty bad, though, and if kept needs major re-writing and editing to remove peacock terms and such. --Crusio (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite. Meets WP:PROF, he is the editor of two academic journals Protohistoria and Revista Iberoamericana de Historia. Change to Delete, journals are not available in academic libraries. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per J.Mundo's improvements, subject meets WP:PROF.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  16:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looking at the bibliography in the esWP, this archeologist he has published a total of 9 articles and his doctoral thesis; no independent books. The two journals are very minor, with no copies in worldCat, or at LC or British Museum- It's only a major well-established journal where the editorship meets WP:PROF. Allowances do have to be made for it being a very specialized field not well represented in the US: Spanish protohistory, but I think someone with this sparse publication record and without evidence of an academic position fails WP:LPROF very conclusively and is not notable. DGG (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The journal "Revista Iberoamericana" is listed in the Autonomous University of Madrid's library, 1 and Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, 2. --J.Mundo (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I could not find a single entry for either of the journals in WorldCat. Thus, like DGG, I do not think he meets WP:PROF criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal). Does not seem to pass other notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This distinguished researcher is editor-in-chief and publisher of those publications, but the more important thing is that his methodology let us to reconstruct, as a solid framework, the economic history of all the ancient peoples. All the readers of Wikipedia have right to know this. Thanks. (Blasdelezo) 03:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. This user has made few or no other edits outside of this topic.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per the detailed analysis of DGG and Eric Yurken's additional data. Fails WP:PROF by a long way. --Crusio (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Dear Crusio, have you read my post? Your opinion is absolutely subjective. I am also professor and researcher and cannot understand your interest about this matter because you are not an historian or an archaeologist. I repeat: this individual has contributed much to science. That is indisputable, please evaluate this data. (Blasdelezo) 09:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC) (striking, voting twice --J.Mundo (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Dear Blasdelezo, yes, I have read your post and no, my opinion is not purely subjective but based upon the decidedly objective criteria of WP:PROF. As shown conclusively by DGG and Eric Yurken, these criteria are not met. I am perfectly willing to believe that this person has made wonderful contributions to science. But for an encyclopedic article, we'll need a little bit more tangible evidence than some editors just saying so. --Crusio (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am absolutely agree with the enormous importance of the scientific achievements of this researcher. CSIC, Spain. --Obama2012 10:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC) — Obama2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crusio (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:PROF, per DGG and Eric Yurken. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2009 (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.