Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leandro Bueno Bergantin


 * 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. Closing due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Leandro Bueno Bergantin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Somewhat procedural as creator (and subject) reverted DGG's move to Draft and User:Onel5969 correctly pointed out an element of WP:DRAFTIFY that I was not aware of. It does not appear that Bergantin yet passes WP:PROF per the sourcing he provided, and I cannot find anything else in searching. Incubation in DRAFT would be preferable to deletion from my POV.

Less copy paste/more legible version is here in the history. StarM 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.       StarM 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.       StarM 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.       StarM 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPROF.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The article ´Leandro Bueno Bergantin" does meet WP:NPROF. Please see below:


 * According to Google Scholar, ´Leandro Bueno Bergantin´ has achieved 714 citations (12/19/2020). In addition, Dr. Bergantin´s research work solved the enigma of the paradoxical effects produced by L-type Ca2+ channel blockers (CCB), which was published in Cell Calcium (JCR: 4.87) and achieved the position ´ScienceDirect TOP 25 Hottest Articles´ (ranked #1 on the TOP 25 for Cell Calcium, 2013). This discovery generated 17 articles published in international journals indexed in PubMed, in which 14 of them Dr. Bergantin is the sole author; e.g. Cancer Letters (JCR: 7.36), Pharmacological Research (JCR: 5.89), Current Protein & Peptide Science (JCR: 2.52), Current Pharmaceutical Design (JCR: 2.20), Psychiatry Research (JCR: 2.11), Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry (JCR: 2.04). Briefly, since 1975 several clinical and experimental studies have reported that acute and chronic administration of L-type CCB, such as nifedipine, produces reduction in arterial pressure associated with a paradoxical increase of sympathetic activity. In 2013, Dr. Bergantin discovered that this paradoxical increase in sympathetic activity produced by L-type CCB is due to the interaction of Ca2+/cAMP signalling, then opening new avenues for biomedical research, e.g. neurological and psychiatry diseases, cancer, diabetes, and asthma. Dr. Bergantin is member of several editorial boards of international journals, and has been frequently invited to be honorable guest in international conferences as well as to participating in media interviews. His last book is entitled ´The “Calcium Paradox” and its Impact on Neurological and Psychiatric Diseases´ (publisher: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. NLM ID: 101734546).

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=bergantin+lb&show_snippets=off&sort=pubdate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanbio39 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The citation record is pretty marginal for WP:NPROF C1 in a higher citation field.  There's one paper with a good number of citations (but a large number of coauthors), and not so much else.  I don't see any other NPROF criteria, nor other notability.  The article is in poor shape, and WP:TNT would apply even if the subject did (weakly) pass notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the Single Purpose Account (SPA) will not take the very good advice that this article is not ready for mainspace, then WP:TNT is the only good alternative. We only have so much time to dedicate to this project, and deliberate abuse of the process should be met with appropriate sanction. There is still time for the SPA to request that the article be moved back into draft so that it can be improved. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete 3 reasons: Reason 1. Does not meet WP:PROF. According to consistent results of many AfDs over the last several years, Showing a person an influence in their field requires in biomedicine a citation record containing at least two papers with over 100 each. In my opinion as ingle very highly cited paper might do it also, but very highly cited in this context would be several hundred.  Generating 17 articles is meaningless, if the articles are most of them very little cited--it's fairly routine to try to build up what might look as an impressive record by subdividing publication into as many little papers as possible. The JCR of the journals is irrelevant, because even the best journals turn out to publish papers that are very little cited. In fact, a JCR of 7 means that each paper in the journal will be cited 7 times on average, which is much less than 100.  Science Direct TOP 25 is a publisher's promotional device.  Reason 2: The nature of the article and the intent is highly promotional. A single medium-interest discovery is not notable, so the only possible intent is to promote the career of a fairly young beginning academic who is still an assistant professor. Very few people at that level have ever been the subject of WP article.   And third Although,, as User:One15969 said on StarM;s talk page "While I completely agree that it should be in draftspace, it had already been draftified once" ... AfD? "   I don't think that move out of draft space was a valid move--it was performed by , who is not an afch reviewer, but an editor who has worked on only one article, this one, and created the article.. I think the edit history shows the promotional intent: the editor has attempted to evade our rules  on what new editors can do; those rules are there for a purpose, which is to prevent articles like this from getting into mainspace. I assume it's an attempt an an autobio, and that's why we have guidleines against writing your own bio in WP.  DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Re DGG: Regarding your third, procedural, point. The AfC is an optional process and new users, once they become WP:Autoconfirmed are not required to use it when creating new articles. (Btw, Leanbio39, while being an SPA, isn't so new as a user, having edited since 2014.) It's true that someone, who is not an approved AfC reviewer, cannot formally promote/approve an AfC submission. But when dealing with their own article/draft, they don't have to use the AfC process at all, and the fact that someone else slapped an AfC template on their draft does not somehow compell them to go through the AfC process. If the user in question is autoconfirmed, they are perfectly within their rights to remove the AfC tag and then to move the draft to mainspace themselves via a page move. On the other hand, the current NPP draftification practices are procedurally problematic. WP:Draftify policy says that if a page is draftified as a part of NPP, "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD." However, in practice, unlike with AfD/Prod/CSD talk page notices, user talk page notofications about such NPP draftifications mention nothing about the right to contest the draftification. Instead the draft usually gets tagged with an AfC template and the user talk page templated message says something to the effect that when the draft is ready for mainspace, the author should push the "Submit your draft for review" button. Nothing is mentioned about either the option of contesting the move to draftspace directly, or about not having to use the AfC process if the user is autoconfirmed. These kind of practices may be well-intentioned, but in terms of due process and basic fairness they are definitely wanting, especially compared to much more robust notification and appeal (DRV/refund/CSD contest button, etc) practices used for the deletion process itself. Nsk92 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE: DGG has omitted important information. According to Google Scholar, ´Leandro Bueno Bergantin´ has published 100 articles, which have been cited 714 times. His most cited article has 132 citations, the second most cited article has 72 citations, the third most cited article has 65 citations, the fourth most cited article has 64 citations, and so on. In fact, from these 100 articles, 20 articles are indexed in PubMed (14 as sole author). Thus, these data clearly meet WP:NPROF.


 * Source: https://scholar.google.com.br/citations?user=8qjmAgoAAAAJ&hl=pt-BR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanbio39 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)  — Leanbio39 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Despite the single-purpose account arguing otherwise, this is a humdrum failure to meet WP:PROF. (The citation profile is actually worse than mine, despite being in a field where higher citations are more typical, and I'm not wiki-notable.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: The History will sure prove who is right, not your opinions. Finally, wikipedia is not an indexed source, and has no value as an indexed publication such as PubMed, Scopus, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanbio39 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Citations not high enough in a high-citation field. Somehow manages to be both very promotional and an unreadably dry cv-dump at the same time, two different kinds of problem that don't usually go together. Creator name and SPA activities suggest likely autobio. Any one of these together would be good reason for deletion, but we don't even need a reason for that: what we need is a reason for keeping, and we don't have one. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Highly unlikely to be notable (I don't have the relevant notability policy to hand, apologies). There is clearly something wrong with a great chunk of promotional blah typed (or pasted) in such a way as to resemble a profile rather than an article. Agree with above. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:Prof not passed yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC).
 * Delete not even close to meeting the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per above discussion re: PROF, and per WP:TNT. It seems to be a cut-and-paste from a resume or college web page. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete not sufficient to pass WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2020 (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.