Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fernando Revilla


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fernando Revilla

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable. Source is to a paper/chapter he wrote, not a reliable source about him. The other link is to his web site. Scholar search turns up nothing for WP:PROF. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 04:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Source- I am the author of the page Fernando Revilla. The only source I can provide is the book 1 PRIMER CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE MATEMÁTICAS EN INGENIERÍA Y ARQUITECTURA which corresponds to the transcripts of the First International Congress of Mathematics in Civil Engineering and Architecture, section in theoretical developments of applied mathematics (Madrid 2007). There are several authors and one of them is Fernando Revilla (pp.451–454). Here appears Fernando Revilla (ref 702) as one of the authors.

Regards and thanks to all of you. Ferejim (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support deletion: The only known published paper by this author appeared in a conference that is clearly not of international audience. The subject of the paper (pure number theory) does not correspond to the scope of the conference. Moreover the content of the paper is blatant fringe theory. Thus, far to be notable. D.Lazard (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. In addition, his work appears to be on topics covered by WP:FRINGE, but because it is so obscure we will have difficulty finding mainstream sources to counter his views, causing a WP:NPOV problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support deletion: If it is considered far to be notable, and so obscure for finding mainstream sources, I think it should be better to delete the page as soon as possible.Regards. (The author of the page: Ferejim (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC))


 * comment it seems we are in agreement and the creator also supports deletion, so if someone wants to invoke the snowball clause or WP:CSD this could perhaps be closed early?-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:41, 15 July 2012 (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.