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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Florencio Javalquinto-Lagos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no actual notability. He's worked in various places, but never in a high level position. The refs are mostly unreliable for notability DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I myself reviewed this today and found no convincing signs of solid notability and my searches are not finding better. SwisterTwister talk 02:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Simply existing and holding jobs isn't sufficient notability for inclusion here. - Brianhe (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one of the principles of conduct in Wikipedia refers to not bite new users. This community has forgotten what it means this principle. This article is under construction, and want to remove it before she could finish . this is arbitrary , but talks a lot about how this community works now.Marlax22 (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Marlax22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. Article is basically this person's CV and the sources seem all to be web-based. Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete nothing in the article indicates he is other than an economist whose works have not made significant impacts in the field of economics, at least not enough to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Academic impact not enough for WP:PROF#C1. The only other evidence of notability is the Sciacca Prize and I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per proposer. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:00, 27 April 2016 (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.