Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artur Cristovão


 * 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. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Artur Cristovão

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No assertion of notability. Article is mostly just a CV and list of papers. Papers on Google Scholar turn up papers with few citations. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Borderline A7 speedy. Nothing here looks like a claim of notability, let alone anything that could pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The GScholar results, at first sight, look mediocre at best, but leave me somewhat worried about WP:BIAS. What we have is a professor from northern Portugal publishing research in Portuguese on the rural economy of northern Portugal. Once one takes that into account, together with the number of professors who, given the choice between using northern Portugal and (say) western Texas for a case study, would choose northern Portugal over western Texas (particularly if they did not speak Portuguese) - given the citation rates, the chance that he is the world's leading expert on the rural economy of northern Portugal is reasonably high. PWilkinson (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm dubious even of that limited claim. RePEc has academic rankings of about 600 economists in Portugal, among whom it lists the top 25% by rank . Cristovão is not among them. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  17:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- with David's RePEc citation list, it's clear that there's not a citation case, and there's not much else here. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2016 (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.