Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luciano da Fontoura Costa


 * 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Luciano da Fontoura Costa

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Filing this on behalf of an IP that messed up the templates but clearly intended to bring this to AfD. His rationale:

Notability problem: can wikipedia really accept any scientist with an h-index less than 15 or so (maybe even less for this particular case ? In his paper Hirsch proposed that in order to get full prof you should have an h-index at least equal to 20 and wikipedia shold at least do the same ?

I'd add as my own rationale that I believe this person fails the WP:GNG and lacks secondary biographical coverage, regardless of h-index. So count this as a second delete vote. Gigs (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Question to the original unregistered nominator: who is "Hirsch" and what is his paper? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He's referring to H-index. I personally think that notability for professors should not even weigh h-index as a factor, since many with a high h-index fail the GNG since there is no secondary biographical coverage out there. Gigs (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I see now which Hirsch we are talking about. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. GS cites are 489, 54, 50, 36.... with h index = 17 which suffices to pass WP:Prof. The views of Gigs, which he repeatedly tries to push on these pages have not been accepted as policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC).
 * WP:V is policy. No verifiable biographical information means the article will always fail to meet our core policies.  It is the people who cite h-index rather than secondary source coverage who are pushing something that is not policy. Gigs (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. WP:Prof is policy for academic BLPs. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:PROF, as Xxan has demonstrated. Failing the GNG is irrelevant, as wp:prof is an independent source of notability. Verifiability about basic things like employment can be had from autobiographical sources like the subject's website; his papers are self-verifying. Ray  Talk 08:08, 16 November 2010 (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.