Deletion of Robert William Lawrence

Comment: Google searches are irrelevant for historical figures - ''absence of evidence is not evidence of absence''.  Article needs to lose the memorial site tone and get references, but the first botanist in Tasmania absolutely made an enduring historical contribution, which is a  reason for keeping.  Google scholar search proves the species exists quite handily, http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Robert+William+Lawrence&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=0&as_brr=0&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn= this Google Book search proves enough sources exist for a valid article, http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0881926353&id=L_R91RSyqw8C&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=%22Robert+William+Lawrence%22&sig=qdFyeWWCOG19-y3FzTBPlvLg-lM&hl=en this page proves the basic facts (sign-in to Google books required
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)