Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Becker Westphall (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Ok, this is a bit of a mess, so:
 * That other things have Wikipedia pages does not mean this one should. For one thing, the other articles may also merit deletion. For the other thing, they may be different.
 * Speculation on there being persecution does not help anyone, especially when there is no proof.
 * Merely asserting that something is notable is not enough for keeping a topic.
 * It is rather impolite to talk about "egos" in a discussion on whether we should have an article on something. Making an account solely to insult a person is unacceptable.
 * On the flipside, it's also impolite to start hunting down editors because they started a deletion discussion. We don't have any personal dislike of the article topic, just concerns about whether they meet or don't meet our admittedly not always clear (and to people unfamiliar with the details, arbitrary) inclusion criteria.
 * A deletion discussion 10 years ago on a different project is not necessarily irrelevant, although in general you'd want to explain whether the arguments provided apply here and now on enwiki.
 * When people say that someone is notable (and not in the sense of WP:N) or important it's useful to show evidence.
 * While not explicitly prohibited, it's often a bad idea to make an account solely to !vote in a certain way in an AfD.

All that said, it seems like there is no indication that the topic meets WP:GNG and consensus excluding the SPA and poorly argued IP posts lends itself to the notion that WP:PROF isn't met either. And thus, we cannot have an article on this topic at this time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Carlos Becker Westphall
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page should not exist. It is very clear that the subject is the one reverting deletion requests. He does not provide citation for most claims and fills the article with useless claims (such as "Talk in WhateverCon 2017"). Also, page was nominated before and the nomination was closed as delete, but the deletion was reverted for some reason. Sparkling Pessimist  Scream at me!  16:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep THIS PAGE SHOULD EXIST. NOTE THAT DELETING THIS PAGE WOULD BE AN ABSURD. WHY PROFESSOR WESTPHALL HAS A GREAT PROFILE. WELL BETTER THAN MANY OTHER PROFESSORS AND WIKIPAGE ARTICLES. IT IS ENOUGH TO ANALYZE YOUR PERFORMANCE INDEXES AS SHOWN ON RESEARCHGATE AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR CITATIONS. HOWEVER, THERE IS A GREAT ENVIRONMENT AND PERSECUTION AGAINST THE COMPUTER SCIENCE OF THIS UNIVERSITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.228.109 (talk • contribs) — 150.162.228.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment I'm sorry, but not every professor deserves their own Wikipedia article especially one that isn't at all notable. Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  19:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment THIS PAGE SHOULD EXIST. You must be consistent. What authority do you have to say that a professor is or is not notable? Certainly he is much more notable than others that have articles in wikipedia. So you're being unfair. In addition, the article has already been corrected and changed to be in accordance with the wikipedia requirements. Even so, you have disregarded these facts and commented on problems that no longer exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.228.117  (talk • contribs)  — 150.162.228.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO: he has no coverage other than his papers (i.e. are non independent). Fails all items of WP:ACADEMIC; his most cited work has 272 citations, not very remarkable in computer science, and he's not the first author in it. Also, the all-caps comments here against deletion are form a IP inside the professor's university, which could indicate a conflict of interest. Shinigami3 (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Shinigami3 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: multiple IPs that appear to be the same person are being used to derail the discussion.  Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  22:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Congratulations Professor Westphall. Google Scholar - Citations 1911, h-index 17, ResearchGate 42.92; 476,063 Reads. Top Top Professor. Full professor at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (Brazil), since 1993. Founder of the IEEE Latin American Network Operations and Management Symposium and of the Network and Management Laboratory at the Federal University of Santa Catarina. Editorial board of Computer Networks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.16.149.195 (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)  — 177.16.149.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep THIS PAGE MUST BE EXISTING ONE. IT SHOULD BE KEPT. Professor Westphall is much more notable than any other. He has already taken necessary measure to meet the wikipedia requirements. Congratulations Professor Westphall ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.223.151 (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)  — 14.139.223.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm going to bet you a pack of salt and vinegar crisps that this professor is more notable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * General comment to all participants in this debate. Please be advised that !votes that are not policy based will likely be ignored by the closing admin. If you want to argue that this bio should be kept, then please show evidence that Westphall meets either WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:ACADEMIC (one of them is enough). To whomever is organizing this infestation of anonymous IPs: please stop, your efforts are really harming your case and as all these IP !votes are likely to be ignored completely, the effort is wasted. Finally: please comment on the issues, not on people. Please see WP:AFD if you're not familiar with how these debates are run. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Page should be removed. Wikipedia is no place for egos but for knowledge sharing. It should try to resemble some "Internet yellow pages". 9:41, 20 September 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.73.178.254 (talk)  — 164.73.178.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: actually, WP is an encyclopedia and should not resemble "some Internet yellow pages" (see WP:NOTADIRECTORY). And "knowledge sharing" includes biographies of notable persons, which is what should be the topic of this discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I would keep Carlos Becker Westphall's page simply for the reason that he seems to be unique in disseminating useful information to mailing list subscribers. Having said that, I doubt whether Professor Westphall ultimately cares about the fate of this page. If he truly did revert the attempt at deletion, he probably did so out of a sense of injustice, rather than a misplaced sense of self-aggrandizement. Edepa (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Moved from talk page
 * Delete. Article offers no evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mr. Westphall may be a nice guy who sends useful information to mailing lists, the article should be deleted because he fails at WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:ACADEMIC. I'm sorry. Yogistrop (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Yogistrop (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Mr. Westphall thinks is "under attack" because his page was nominated for deletion. He so concerned about his page that he even has sent an email to thousands of subscribers of Brazilian Computer Society's mailing list (original, requires registration, and copy) asking for help to locate and identify the "aggressor" behind IP 150.162.12.112. As you can see, there is no aggression whatsoever from IP, and his only edit was an ordinary deletion request of an article about someone that does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:ACADEMIC. Yogistrop (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh my god, this is getting shameful. They are talking about breaking user privacy completely to chase on someone that marked the article for deletion for lack of notability? The university administration should be informed of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.16.109.75 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. We are solely concerned with issues of notability here. Up till now, the arguments presented boil down to "does not meet etc" or "keep this page". There's a lot of words, but very few arguments. For those arguing for "keep", please tell us how the subject meets any of the listed notability guidelines. For those arguing against, please tell us how the subject does not meet those guidelines. As for any off-wiki harassment, WP:ANI is the place for that, not this AfD. Concerning the off-wiki canvassing (not really something that merits informing a university administration about), as I have stated above, that is pretty useless, as the closing admin will without any doubt ignore all the SPA/IP !votes (on both sides of the debate). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per SamHolt6 - doesn't meet notability standards. There are zero independent refs - 1 to a journal listing and 1 to a database.  The reasons for deletion back in 2008 still apply as well.
 * A couple of reason to delete are probably more suggestive of major problems than (strictly speaking) based on policy. There is no corresponding article in Portugese, which I'd expect if he was notable in Brazil. Also the photo appears to be a passport photo (see imprinted seal on the side) and was uploaded as "own work" by the same editor who re-created the article.    Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I am new at wiki - this is the first time I am posting! Disclosure: I have met Dr. Carlos Becker Westphall once many years ago. Two of my students and I participated in a tutorial that he was the speaker of and we all significantly benefitted from the tutorial (it was an impressive work). I am somewhat familiar with his research contributions. In addition, I am not a relative and also do not know him personally. Dr. Westphall is probably one of the most well known Computer Scientists in Brazil. He has name recognition above and beyond most others in South America. His DSc is in Computer Science from one of the most prestigious institutions in France. He has published in stringently reviewed journals and conferences and has won best paper awards. He has served all major associations in a selfless manner (including IEEE, CNOM, ...) and has received formal appreciation awards from them. He has been the team coordinator of European research initiatives and has led research teams in Brazil. He has (and continues) serving on various journal and conference editorial boards. Dr. Westphall's published work has received about 2,000 citations with a very healthy acceleration in his citation record (69, 97, 157, 197, 250, 244, 287 citations for years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 respectively). His papers published in 2010 "A cloud computing solution for patient's data collection in health care institutions" and "Intrusion detection for grid and cloud computing" are of award quality each receiving over 250 citations. According to worldcat.org ( https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2008187999/ ); some of his published work has been translated into three languages (17 in Portuguese, 7 in English, and 2 in French). Many of his work as editor have been produced in multiple editions. According to Google Scholar ( http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:network_and_service_management ), he is the THIRD highest cited researcher in "Network and Service Management). He is also among the top 80 researchers in IoT. If the above (which is a very small subset of Dr. Westphall's achievement) does not qualify him to be included in wiki, then I do not know who would qualify. I can provide more information about his achievements but at the same time I know that none of what I say matters. The wiki editors would do what they wish (I have seen wiki "editors" in acts of low integrity and low ethics when it comes down to people of good repute). It is offensive to read some of the comments on this page. Schultzr (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Schultzr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. "According to Google Scholar (...) he is the THIRD highest cited researcher in Network and Service Management". No, he is not. He is the 3rd out of 18 researchers in the number of total citations among the researchers that created a profile in Google Scholar and labelled one of their research areas as "Network and Service Management". He is not even the third highest cited author within "Network and Service Management" research area, whatever that buzzword means... Yogistrop (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which sources tell that he is "one of the most well known Computer Scientists in Brazil"? I do not see any. If we had such RS (and they were telling anything of substance and interesting about the person), that would be a very different story. Without supporting WP:RS, he looks like plain non-notable. "THIRD highest cited researcher in"... his lab. And this is all one can tell to justify his notability. The lab is not notable as well, even by WP standards. My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete [redacted: personal attack on Westphal removed; one more edit like this and you'll be blocked from editing.] TheTruthSpeaker ( smalltalk ) :18:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — TheTruthSpeaker (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete His article in the Portuguese Wikipedia was deleted in 2007 because, like this one, it wasn't encyclopedic content. It was mostly a transcription of his curriculum vitae (again, just like this one). Here's the link to the AfD in the Portuguese Wikipedia. 2801:84:0:1018:C82:9FA6:DE9:7B5C (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — 2801:84:0:1018:C82:9FA6:DE9:7B5C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Different wikis have different standards. What happened on the pt wiki is immaterial here. AfDs from 10 years ago are even less pertinent. --Randykitty (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 *  Keep  All his major research contributions were published AFTER 2007. He is now qualified to be included in wiki. It is very telling that those of you who are recommending "delete" are not countering one single statement I said above. Some of your reasoning included "I am one of his students ..." and/or his wiki was deleted before (over a DECADE ago). In fact, you are all making my case - the reasons that you are providing in removing the wiki page make my case for keeping it. Schultzr (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Schultzr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Please only !vote once. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Prof Westphall's bio aligns with WP:ACADEMIC standards have been providing a significant contribution to Brazilian academia along more than 30 years of Full Professorship. His research has had a significant impact in Network Management, a discipline of Computer Sciences, as demonstrated by his list of publications, co-authorships, promotion of research networks, and number of citations. Moreover, he has provide an extensive contribution to formation of human resources and the next generation fo researchers and innovators in Brazil. Prof. Westphall has received numerous academic acclaims and awards at national and international levels, heading some of the most prestigious initiatives in Network Management research in the world, such as NOMS. His work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. He has head the Journal of Network and Management Systems, a notorious publication venue in the area. From a personal point, I know Prof Westphall for over 20 years and can assure his commitment to the formation of next generation of researchers in Brazil. He is not a sef-promoting personal and I see his interest at Wikepedia as setting a role model to promote leadership in research in Brazil. As an expat Brazilian researcher, I highlight the importance of equity and equivalence in promoting diversity of research approaches and consider the equivalence of research output between from leader researchers in developing and underrepresented regions. fkoch (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Fernandokoch2017 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. I'm afraid that your spirited praising of Westphall does not carry much weight. This is not a vote. Just saying "I like him" is not enough. You will have to show with reliable sources independent of the subject, how he meets one of the guidelines mentioned above. As a word of advice to other SPAs kreeping out of the woodwork: save your breath. Unless your arguments are policy-based, they will be ignored. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Citations on GS in this very high cited field not enough yet to pass WP:Prof. There is nothing else, WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete. This Prof. made no breakthrough or is relevant for Computer Science in general. Albeit there are many publications, his h-index is low compared to other notable people in the area (list of professors with h-index more than 40). His publications are not even listed among the List of important publications in computer science in Computer Science. In addition, he doesn't meet any criteria to be listed in List of computer scientists. So, unless he does something notable, in my opinion, this page should be removed since it is centered on quantity instead of quality. Fettboba (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC) — Fettboba (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The list you cite is extremely selective, containing only an estimated 0.06% of all computer scientists. We usually put the bar much lower here at WP. And if this bio is kept (which looks unlikely at this point), it would need to be included in the list of computer scientists (having an article here is sufficient to be included in that list, being or not being in that list has no bearing on notability). And, yes, some people are notable because of the quantity of their work, not necessarily the quality. --Randykitty (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:PROF clearly not enough to pass WP:Prof and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Complete and utter blank when searching for sources. I've got a sore head from reading the discussions further up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Unremarkable citation profile, no evidence of major awards, no sources indicating that something he wrote has become a standard text... I'm just not seeing a way to pass WP:PROF, let alone any other guideline. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article fails to pass WP:PROF and doesn't show that he's done anything remarkable enough in Computer Science for coverage. --  Dane talk  20:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is simply nothing significant in his biography, nothing that would be worth including in online encyclopedia. WP is not a listing of individuals from various fields. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I also nominated for deletion Network and Management Laboratory. Same thing. This is pure advertisement. My very best wishes (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I think the off-wiki canvassing may have slightly poisoned the well here. Google Scholar returns a high number of citations to Westphall's work, although perhaps not enough to pass WP:PROF in a high-citation field like computer science, and mentions a few things that suggest a potential pass of other PROF criteria. But we would need some sources for that, which I can't find. I'd be interested to hear if  had any insight. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Fernandokoch2017 did not disclosure Mr. Westphall was his master's degree advisor, and they has been publishing papers together for a long time. Actually Mr. Westphall is co-author in 25% of the Fernandokoch2017's papers listed in DBLP. Therefore I would take Fernandokoch2017's comment with a grain of salt. Yogistrop (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yep. And given that your only edits here are to get Westphall's bio deleted, your comments are certain to be taken with a grain of salt, too. I don't care who was advising who. It's arguments and sources that count, not !votes. --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. You may not care who was advising who but I'm pretty sure other people (including the future closer of this AfD) would like to know why some opinions may be highly biased. Anyway it's funny see you complaining about the account I've created to participate in this AfD because I did it because someone else asked me so. I was just fine editing anonymously and I plan to back to anonymity after this ends. Yogistrop (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment': Ritchie's response was to an IP whose only contributions where about Westphall, as is the case for your current account. If you want to be taken more seriously in this kind of discussions, you'd better show more contribution history. As for "biased" comments that are not policy based (just like the one directly below by ), those are routinely ignored by closing admins (and I speak from experience, having closed hundreds of AfDs and participated in even more). --Randykitty (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think this article should be kept as per WP:ACADEMIC. Prof. Westphall is a known proponent of free access information (articles and books). He is also a well respected researcher on Cloud related issues with proven track record in both publishing and directing graduate degree students. Nick 1976 (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC) — Nick 1976 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak delete. This AfD is a mess of canvassing, new editors unfamiliar with our standards, and apparent animus on both sides. To run through some of the arguments we might try using to help resolve this:
 * Westphall is a fellow of an organization called IARIA, but I've never heard of that organization before and from web searches they appear to be, or to once have been, or to have been accused of being, a spammy organizer of low-quality for-profit conferences; for instance they were included on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers before it was taken down. So I don't think this is good for a pass of WP:PROF and may count against Westphall more than it counts for him.
 * Westphall has moderate (borderline) numbers of citations in a high-citation field, not so high as to convince me of a clear pass of WP:PROF but high enough that it's not a clear fail either. The questionable nature of IARIA might cast into doubt some of his citation counts, but I looked through them and they look like valid citations from other authors rather than self-citations, many of them in respectable non-IARIA publications, so if there's a citation circle going on here it's not an obvious one.
 * Maybe the best claim to fame from his web site is that he founded the Latin American Network Operations and Management Symposium, which is run by a more respectable organization, IEEE. We can certainly verify that he was the editor for the first of these symposia. But it's not clear to me that it's a notable event itself, let alone notable enough for its founder to have any inherited notability. Founding a conference is not one of the WP:PROF criteria so we'd have to go to WP:GNG to get notability that way, and without in-depth independently-written and independently-published sources for his role in the conference, there's not much hope there.
 * He's on various editorial boards but that's not enough for notability without being editor in chief, per WP:PROF. Similarly, he has a leadership role within IEEE CNOM but without heading that organization it's not enough for WP:PROF.
 * He has some best paper awards but those never count for much.
 * So, in summary, there are some arguments for notability, maybe enough to justify a weak keep but nothing clear-cut. There is clearly both a lot of self-promotion and a lot of reaction to the self-promotion, and very little in the way of independent reliable sourcing that would allow us to cut through all of this hullabaloo and write a neutral article. So I'm on the fence, but I think the lack of good sourcing for this is tilting me towards deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Per David Eppstein's detailed analysis. The citation data (which I added to the article) gave me pause, but I'm convinced by David's arguments. Fails to meet GNG or ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It was deleted several times from Wikipedia in Portuguese 1/2/3/4. See also:, , , ,   and . Bilhauano (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Did not improve significantly from last deletion (or really any of the lots of deletions of the above comment), so the same arguments still apply. Even though he seems to have some relation to some relevant things, I can't find strong bounds that make the subject notable enough for the rules. --Lordfire (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC) — Lordfire (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.