Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelo Henrique Almeida


 * 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. No evidence was presented of meeting WP:GNG, WP:PROF nor WP:AUTHOR. While many (entirely new) editors dissented, none presented specific evidence of notability, nor a credible policy-based argument. j⚛e deckertalk 02:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Marcelo Henrique Almeida

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:PROF and WP:NAUTHOR. SmartSE (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Didn't do anything new, isn't well-known, hasn't made impact in their field, and sure doesn't seem to be regarded as important by other professors and peers, so isn't notable per WP:AUTHOR. --Mysterytrey 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is almost one year old and got no updates from the US Wikipedia community.. It should be expanded not deleted. He´s relevant to the field not only on system theory but on other subjects as well. He´s well known outside US and also have references about his work on the Wikipedia from other countries. I suggest the removal from the deletation list to add it to the article expansion list. If there´s no expansion on the article or after the expansion the article don´t fit on Wikipedia guidelines, then add it to the deletation list, but it should be cleaned up and expanded first. I´m sure Brazil and other Latin American wikipedians will expand the article. --JCarterJr (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can you provide any reliable sources that confirm your claim that he is "well known outside US"? I have searched for them, but can't find anything. SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - One of his books is listed on the bibliography list of portuguese and spanish wikipedia article about systems with other regarded thinkers. I´m looking for more sources and I´ll add it when I expand the article. As I mentioned, there´s a lot of things that should be added, so the article shouldn´t be flagged to deletetion, but to expansion and sources. Also, your argument that he made nothing new is not right. His theory about systems it´s totally new and add a whole new perspective to the field, but I guess this is my fault because of the way I wrote the criticism part. I´ll correct that. You also flagged my account as a new editor that made few or no edits and I don´t think this is fair. I´m new to wikipedia and I pretend to edit articles about systems, brain, consciousness and other related stuff, but that doesn´t mean that I want to promote this subjects, but it means that these are the subjects I can contribute in a helpful way. Also, I´ve edited some articles on the brazillian and spanish wikipedia that are not shown on the US profile for some reason. Let me finish saying that in my opinion Wikipedia is not a place to repeat what´s already online, if this was true, there wouldn´t be a reason to Wikipedia to exist, but the fact you couldn´t find anything about him doesn´t mean that the article should be deleted .But I understand your concern about abuses and I know they happen all the time, but this is clearly not the case. --JCarterJr (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Cannot find any sources or even a single citation on GScholar. @JCarterJr: "notability" in the sense that it is used on Wikipedia has nothing to do with "worthwhile" or "meritorious", or anything like that. It is used in the sense of "being noted" (by others, evidently). And that in itself is not enough either: the fact that someone has been noted needs to be verifiable by independent reliable sources. WP itself (including the Spanish and Portuguese versions) is not a reliable source, we need something more substantial. So in the absence of courses, we simply cannot have an article. I'll follow this discussion, so if you can find some good sources, I'll be happy to change my !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I´m a philosophy student and I can say this subject is a hard one to find sources because of it´s complexity and interdisciplinary nature. Also the academic peer review in philosophy it´s different from science. It´s hard for me as a student to find references or materials about this, so any references as this one helps a lot.--185.41.140.192 (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * — 185.41.140.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Fails WP:N, WP:AUTHOR; as per above.  Them From  Space  23:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. WorldCat is unaware of this person. All the books that are claimed in the article may actually be unpublished manuscripts or pamphlets. Agricola44 (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep There´s no basis to support the books listed are unpublished, manuscripts or pamphlets just because you couldn´t find it on WorldCat. --186.231.125.144 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * — 186.231.125.144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As a matter of fact there is, given that WorldCat is the world's largest bibliographic database. Moreover, none of the listed "books" have a publisher, publication date, etc listed. Please supply these details, if you're aware of them. Agricola44 (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Sure. He have a book called Universal Theory that was published by Saraiva Publishing in Brazil, but I´m sure about the year. I think it was 2011 or 2012. The Universal Theory itself not the book was created earlier.--186.231.125.144 (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I googled '"Universal Theory" "Saraiva Publishing"', but found not a single hit. Is the title not available in English? You should be aware that, even if the book is "published" in the conventional sense, it's not enough to demonstrate the subject's notability. Another possible path to notability is the article's assertion that he has published "nearly a hundred research articles", but the source is a dead link. WoS shows 35 articles for "MH Almeida", but they're mostly in the subjects of forestry and endocrinology, which seem inconsistent with this Almeida, who the article claims is involved in law. Any suggestions for further checking? Agricola44 (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Comment This whole story is crazy. I was having the same problem that you had about the references. I know the book is real because I´ve read it. I also know he created some other stuff and I couldn´t find it any reference anywhere. All I could find was an interview for blog that I´ve never heard of. So I´ve done some investigation and here´s what I found out. The guy seens to be averse to publicity and interviews. The book had a very small publishing and had a small success but it was pulled for no reason. When his work started to show on Wikipedia and other sites, it was deleted later by DMCA request. I have no idea what´s going on, but it seens that the guy doesn´t want any information about him anywhere. Also this clearly doesn´t follow Wikipedia standards, so how do I change my vote? I add a delete line or edit my previous "keep" line? --JCarterJr (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strike the keep and post a delete below. --Randykitty (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep No entry should be deleted because it´s good or bad. If he wants his name to be removed from Wikipedia, he should use the proper channels.--213.179.213.109 (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * — 213.179.213.109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The fact that there are no actual sources that can be found (despite heavy searching) for his claimed books or research papers suggest deletion will be taken care of for him automatically. Agricola44 (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep The book is awesome. I have a copy if someone needs proof. Wikipedia is a mess. A bunch of guys who knows nothing about Brazil deleting articles randomly. Does the administrators want the truth and facts or their truths and their facts? This is just another case that proves that Wikipedia needs new rules. Two deletation requests one right after the other, really? This is what I call impatiality.--177.148.229.49 (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I´m gonna have to agree with the comments above. Even if the article have a few sources, it should be marked as "no sources - credibility" or "help to expand" warnings. This article doesn´t fit the guidelines for being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.27.170.103 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2014 (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.