Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Nemer


 * 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. Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I ignored the !vote by J McCal, which boiled down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT. Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

David Nemer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable academic. The article is chock-full of citations, but few if any are independent sources of significant coverage that actually verify the facts at hand. Many of the citations are generic links to website front pages, rather than to any actual article about Nemer, and many are broken links. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/dnemer/news/DavidNemerATribuna2013.pdf http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/dnemer/news/DavidNemerATribuna2010.pdf http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/dnemer/news/DavidNemerAGazeta2013.pdf http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/dnemer/news/DavidNemerAGazeta2006.pdf
 * Hi, I just came across Nemer's book and I thought he deserved a space on Wikipedia, we have way less notable academics and people on this platform. Which links were broken? So I was able to find the pdfs about his news: http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/dnemer/news/DavidNemerColumn.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisamoore1313 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I just added more evidence (pdf of news articles) on the wiki page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DavidNemerATribuna2015.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisamoore1313 (talk • contribs)
 * I also added another source: David Nemer's research was the cover and main news of the magazine SIM. http://issuu.com/revistaredesim/docs/ed70issuu
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

David Nemer has been to two talk shows in Brazil to talk about his research (Both links with video embedded):
 * http://www.folhavitoria.com.br/videos/2013/10/fala-sustentavel-capixaba-lanca-livro-sobre-uso-de-tecnologia-em-favelas.html
 * http://www.folhavitoria.com.br/videos/2013/09/confira-entrevista-exclusiva-com-o-cientista-david-nemer.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisamoore1313 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Lisamoore1313. I've taken a look at several of these references via google translate.  Some of them only mention Nemer in passing and aren't helpful.  As to the rest.... I've found it to be a useful exercise to write a new article such that every sentence has a citation that supports what is in that sentence, and only use third-party, reliable sources (as you're finding above).  If you were to rewrite the article that way, it would be a lot shorter and the emphasis would probably be on what Nemer did to get the news coverage.  Would you consider rewriting the article that way?  You can knock that out in your "sandbox" (drop me note if you don't know what that means).  Thanks!  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your help. Yes, I'd be willing to re-write the article and make it shorter. This is my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia, and I really thought that Nemer would be "an easy sell" for the platform. I guess he still is, but I just did not do a good job with his description. I think I will need some help with the sandbox thing... is that supposed to be a draft / sketch ? Thanks once again. Lisamoore1313 (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The "official" description of sandboxes is here: WP:ABOUTSAND.  The shorter version is that you can have as many pages as you like in your userspace, and by convention those pages are put into the "sandbox" directory.  For example, my sandbox is here:  User:Lesser Cartographies/sandbox.  Yours will be here:  User:Lisamoore1313/sandbox.  Just click on that link and start editing.  It's a nice way to write and polish articles until they're ready to be moved into the main encyclopedia.  (There are a few other ways as well, but this is the simplest.)  Keep in mind that I am still not convinced that Nemer is "notable".  If you haven't already, take a look at WP:BIO.  That contains the general notability guidelines.  If you can fulfill those, your subject is notable.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks LC! I will work on that tomorrow and I'll get back to you. Cheers!


 *  ULTRA SPEEDY Delete Possibly the most self-serving and nauseating article I have seen on Wikipedia, at least recently. He's a mid-level computer scientist with a new professor gig. Not notable. Page reads like a resume written for prospective parents of the bride. I removed over a dozen reference links to his own web page. The page as a whole seems to be a very coordinated 'effort'. His Google scholar citations profile has him cited eighteen times in total, with an H-index of 3. An H-Index of 3 means, well a) you are not notable for your research and do not meet WP:PROF(at least yet), and b) you are not marrying my daughter. New Media Theorist (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I got most of the information on the wiki page from his own webpage, hence it may sound like a resume. However, if you read the news articles, his book, and watch the interviews, you will see that his page is way more than a "self-serving and nauseating article". He has done something that academics, specially new media theorists, fail to do, which is going beyond academia and making a difference in people's lives, especially those who suffer socioeconomic marginalization. You are referring to that article as if he is writing it... but it is me, you can refer directly to me! African american female writers can also contribute to wikipedia. Keep that in mind. You got rid of the Awards and Education sections, which is fine with me.. but before I wrote this article I looked at some other new media theorists' articles, and most of them have these sections. I'm not interested in your daughter by the way. I smell bias here! Lisamoore1313 (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply Hello Lisamoore1313! Welcome to Wikipedia. Don't take what I said about the page personally: it was about the page and not about you. I'm not sure what you mean by bias, if you have evidence, pony it up. Otherwise please go and read Civility. Also you need to sign your posts with the four tildes at the end of the text. Instructions here:WP:SIGHOW. This discussion is based on consensus and arguments. Over the course of about a week, more editors will add their appraisal of his notability. Once there are enough votes (you should vote, by putting your vote in bold, as I did for mine), an administrator will look at the votes and the arguments and determine what the consensus of the discussion was. The admin will then close the AfD, and wither delete, keep or redirect the page ads appropriate. You need not argue with me as I have made my decision regarding voting, but you can always argue with the other editors who come along.


 * Argument-wise, I would add the argument that he does not meet WP:Author for one book with a few run-of-the-mill speaking engagements and reviews. Let's hear what others have to say. New Media Theorist (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * PS: I got rid of his awards section because it listed, and I kid you not, a $1500 scholarship and teaching assistantships. The whole section covered about five awards that were worth a total of $8600. These are standard awards that every graduate student gets. That is material for a resumé, and not a global encyclopedia. pages with a proper awards section have notable and significant awards.New Media Theorist (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete (but not a speedy delete after NMT's cleanups). It's too early in his career for academic notability to be likely, and his Google scholar profile shows only single-digit citations, nowhere near the impact that would be needed to be notable for highly-cited academic works. So the better shot is through our notability guidelines for authors and his recent book Favela Digital. But amid blogs and other unreliable sources, I found only one published academic review of the book and in any case there are also issues with being notable only for one thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * agree. I may have overreacted to the previous bloated version of the page. Changing to just plain delete, with the note that it is likely WP:TOOSOON.New Media Theorist (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: curriculum vitae (resume) -- belongs on LinkedIn, not here. Quis separabit?  11:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Don't have an !vote yet, as sources offered by Lisamoore1313 are in Portuguese and will take some time to get through. But I'm glad that New Media Theorist  owned up to his/her overreaction.  Using words like "the most self-serving and  nauseating article I have seen" in an Afd is not a good idea, per   WP:AFDEQ .and Civility.  Unfortunately, with so many "self serving" spam articles being foisted daily on Wikipedia, we probably all have a tendency to forget to assume good faith. WP:GF ABF99 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment ABF99, I hear what you are saying, which revolves around WP:BITE. That said, I was talking about the article and of course not about the editor, to whom I was very helpful if you read my reply. My overreaction was voting speeding delete instead of delete. An article with a section on tiny student awards is certainly bloated. New Media Theorist (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment ABF99, thanks for considering going through the references I have provided. A Tribuna and A Gazeta are the two largest newspapers in Vitória and in the state of Espírito Santo (where Nemer is from and did his research). Also, his research was the cover of Revista SIM, which is published by Record, the second largest news media conglomerate in Brazil (the largest is Globo). If you read the news articles you will see the actual impact that he, as an activist and scholar, has made there. Lisamoore1313 (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment ABF99 New Media Theorist David Eppstein here's more evidence about the impact of Nemer's research - one of the first ethnographies of technology use in Favelas: http://www.rioonwatch.org/?p=20426 Also bare in mind that Nemer's field is ICT4D and Community Informatics, which are fields that have a larger impact among practitioners than theorists Lisamoore1313 (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Another Article from Rio on Watch where Nemer's work is cited: http://www.rioonwatch.org/?p=21887 Lisamoore1313 (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Lisamoore1313, have a look at WP:RS as it may help you to identify the sources that are the strongest among what you have found. New Media Theorist (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment New Media Theorist Thanks for pointing it out, but I believe I have provided all kinds of reliable sources. As I have mentioned, the newspapers, magazine, and other websites (like Rio On Watch) have an editorial oversight. Could you let me know which sources you don't think are reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisamoore1313 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Nemer was invited to write columns in the local newspaper A Tribuna to talk about his research and technology and society, here's one of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DavidNemerColumn.pdf I have provided with reliable sources, as defined at WP:RS, to support his article: News, Newspapers, Book, Scholarly work, and although he doesn't have any work on JStor, he has his work in the ACM digital library, Taylor & Francis, and other online repositories. Lisamoore1313 (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Just like Lisamoore1313, I’m new to Wikipedia and since I have just returned backpacking through South America, I decided to contribute to Wikipedia by adding some accurate information I came across during my visits. I edited the wiki article about Vitoria, and by browsing around I found Nemer’s article – and to my surprise there’s a debate on whether of not an article about him should be included in Wikipedia. Here’s the explanation for my surprise. I spent 5 days in the city of Vitoria, and as every student traveling on shoestring, I was constantly after cheap and free services for 5 days. One of the free services I found was free access to the Internet and computer in the Telecenters of the city. Basically the Telecenters are free computer rooms with Internet that promote digital literacy programs in order to digitally include the poor population in Vitoria – the City Government funds them. The Telecenters are mostly located in poor neighborhoods, but I was using the one in the downtown area. The people that work in the Telecenters are really nice, and I was thanking them for their services and also mentioning that the Telecenter project is a really useful idea. The lady, who works there, mentioned that the current city government had decided to cancel the project and shut down the centers, which would have left the poor population pretty much with no Internet. But because of Nemer’s engagement, research, and willingness to speak in front of the local congress, he was able to convince local politicians to vote for the maintenance of the Telecenter project. I also came across his book Favela Digital, which there’s a copy of it in every Telecenter of the city – for his book, he recruited slum residents, trained them, and included them in the book project. These slum residents took most of the photos in the book, and after the book was done, they were able to get jobs in local communication agencies. I can’t seem to find a news article about it right now, but I’m sure there is something in the news about Nemer’s speech at the local congress. From what I have read here, yes, he is a young scholar and in the beginning of his academic career, but his civic engagements show us how relevant and notable his research and profile are. I don’t mean to compare him with anyone else, but Wikipedia has articles about Swedish porn stars (who have been to only 1 movie, by the way), and really young scholars. To my understanding, Nemer is not only a young scholar, but also civic activist and book writer, who has impacted not only people’s lives but general policies in Vitoria (and also affected my life a French woman backpacking through South America) - which is enough to be considered notable. I can read Portuguese, although I don’t consider myself fluent, but the articles provided by lisamoore1313 clearly state Nemer’s notability. I highly recommend you guys to take a look at the articles and hopefully reconsider your vote. J McCal (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment ABF99 since the others have voted already, my experience might help you make a decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J McCal (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree with J McCal and thanks for sharing your story, although I contributed to Nemer's article I did not know some of the things you described. I believe Nemer fulfills the general notability guideline. He may be a young scholar, but he has been an activist for digital rights for quite some time. References that are present allow for enough information to be eligible for wikipedia. Verifiable objective evidence is included through the sources that are provided. The news articles, from the main newspapers in Vitoria, Brazil, show that he has been a person of public interest since 2006, thus he is just not an ephemeral person. I've been trying to address each comment here by providing more references and more proof of his notability. Nemer was also invited to do a showcase and exhibit (about his book) at the respected International Center of Photography (ICP) in New York (https://twitter.com/davidnemer/status/562601608840613888). Only renowned people like Sebastiao Salgado (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebasti%C3%A3o_Salgado) have done it. Again, the sources presented here do not leave any doubt about Nemer's notability. I'm insisting about the sources because I really had to do some research to find the PDFs for printed newspapers. Lisamoore1313 (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply David Eppstein I did some research and the LSE Reviews of Books, and from what I gathered their reviews have the same quality as the reviews published in journals. Their reviews have editorial oversight (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/about-lserb/). Lisamoore1313 (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep under WP:GNG due to sources listed or Possible redirect to his book  Favela Digital, which barely squeaks by on WP:NBOOK with the two reviews mentioned, one of them being a very small online publication.    As mentioned, there is not enough significant coverage yet to make Nemen notable as an academic.   J McCal  brought in some interesting original research but unfortunately none of it is verifiable.  ABF99 (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete&mdash;Definitely fails WP:ACADEMIC. WP:AUTHOR is plausible given the two solid reviews, but the only two cites google knows about to that book are self-cites.  I'm not comfortable hanging notability on two reviews, so let's call this WP:TOOSOON and see where we are in a few years.  (update:  no objections to ABF99's suggestion of a redirect to the book.)  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to where? There is no book article, nor should there be. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  16:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two solid book reviews. If there was a third I think the notability of the book would be uncontroversial.  If somebody wanted to make an argument that two reviews + many passing references is sufficient for an academic work, it's an argument I would listen to.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assessment, but in any case it has no bearing over this article's deletion discussion. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  02:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per New Media Theorist. Clearly fails WP:PROF, as already stated. This would never have made it past AfC. There is nothing else to it. Note keep !votes by the creator and 2 other meatpuppets. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  16:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And you FoCuS, certainly fail Civility Lisamoore1313 (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FoCuS what is wrong with you FoCuS? Meatpuppets? Please show some respect here. This is unacceptable behavior! J McCal (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2015 (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.