Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice L. Lagarde

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice L. Lagarde

Non-notable BLP, unsourced and untouched since 2005. Medical administrator whose only claim to notability is co-chairing an apparently not very important New Orleans reconstruction commission. Sandstein 08:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact it's a biography of a living person (BLP) is only relevant to deletion if the article contains damaging information about the person, which is not the case here. The commision you're talking about has an article which is referenced with several reliable sources, which would make the organization notable. Being the co-chair of a notable organization makes someone notable. (It's only a co-chair thing because they want to balance out racial tension in the area). If you say the commision is apparently not very important, you should explain why you came to the conclusion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, is it not? Could you provide us with reliable sources covering Mr Lagarde in any depth? Sandstein 16:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google has plenty of info on him. I live in Melbourne, Australia, and I know about this guy. He's important. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep almost 100 Google News references. He's not just a member oft he Commission, he's co-chairman, according to the NY Times story. I would have some doubts about it if he were only a member, but the head of a notable organization can pretty much be assumed to be notable, as essentially all sources on the group will discuss him also. Perhaps we should explicitly amend not inherited to that effect. And there are two equally effective ways to harm Wikipedia while trying in good faith to improve it: one is to insert articles without proper sourcing, and the other is to delete articles without proper sourcing when the sourcing is easily obtainable. DGG (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP does not enter into it. DGG says it so much better than I ever could. However, the individual, his position with HCA, and his commission work are to enough to meet notability. Dloh cierekim 15:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree, there's no serious BLP concerns here, which make ignoring the usual notability standards a nonstarter. Wily D 15:28, 3 November 2008 (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.