Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emídio Brasileiro


 * 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. clear consensus  DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Emídio Brasileiro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has not improved, or indeed changed much at all since it was last deleted a few months ago Jac 16888  Talk 23:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  00:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  00:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I tagged this article AfD in September and it was deleted in October. That was the third time. It reappeared recently in the same state that caused me to tag it in the first place. Someone else tagged it as AfD this time (number 4). It has slightly improved since then, but only through massive cuts.


 * I read through all of the items in the article’s reference list which at first glance appear to be just at the cusp of GNG. Someone is trying very hard to get this vanity page to stick, but the fact is that this is a man (from all the evidence that appears in the reflist) who did a study with his wife in the 1990s and has been self-publishing books and creating buzz about his “expert” status ever since. There are mentions of media appearances, but no actual links to those appearances.


 * Google scholar uncovers only a half dozen hits—Emídio citing himself and a couple of dissertations. I feel that this guy is a relentless self-promoter …in Azerbaijani and Zulu, even. I don’t see any clear support for notability, however. giso6150 (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The October deletion was a WP:PROD, not an AfD, so it can't be used as a precedent here. Were the other deletions you mention under a different name? Because that's the only one I see under this name. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion about which type of deletion it was. I recreated the Talk page and saved this warning from the pink warning-box that was there before I did so…
 * 23:25, 7 October 2015 Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Emídio Brasileiro (G8: Talk page of deleted page "Emídio Brasileiro")
 * 05:06, 30 March 2009 Nancy (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Emídio Brasileiro (G8: Talk page of a deleted or non-existent page)
 * 22:13, 29 March 2009 J.delanoy (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Emídio Brasileiro (Speedy deleted, blanked or requested by creator)
 * I see that the dates are close together in 2009, so that might be one event. It’s hard to contribute to these discussions without some of the admin tools at my disposal. All the past history is hidden for me. I also admit that the difference between AfD and PROD was totally lost on me until now. giso6150 (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see now. I wasn't looking at the talk page history because those are usually boring, but in this case in March 2009 a version of the article was created in Talk: namespace, blanked by its IP creator, speedily deleted, and then another IP editor made a new talk page (still with no associated article) that simultaneously requested a speedy deletion and requested it not to be deleted. That, too, was deleted, and then the next day was the creation of the actual article that was deleted by PROD in 2015. So that explains the multiple deletions, but again, doesn't give us much information that will help decide this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help interpreting and navigating this article's deletion history; my vote of Delete still stands, based on the notability guidelines for academics. giso6150 (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best for now because none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  06:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per nom. Self promotional, not notable and badly sourced... -- Hybris1984 (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment.That is not true.189.5.144.212 (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Jendiroba


 * Comment Giso6150 who knows Brazilian culture should respect more Brazilians.189.5.144.212 (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Jendiroba


 * Comment This page is of satisfactory level."This is a notable topic and has been mentioned in a lot of sources". 189.5.144.212 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Jendiroba
 * Delete. Almost no citations in Google scholar, and no other evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * David,It is best to request the termination of the page, but not with that excuse.189.5.144.212 (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Jendiroba


 * 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.