Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelo Samuel Berman (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Marcelo Samuel Berman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is an autobiography, it contains no reliable independent sources, the references are either to his own work or are mere directories. It is perilously close to WP:CSD, in fact. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  09:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  09:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  09:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  09:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, an autobiography with not a single third party source, even his own CV fails verification, no in depth coverage by newspapers magazines etc fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but stub. As argued in the previous AfD, the subject seems to satisfy WP:PROF#1 and consensus in academic AfDs has not changed significantly meanwhile. However, while that justifies a short article on the subject, it does not justify a promotional autobiography that we appear to have here. PWilkinson (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, but stub. The article is a mess but as in the first AfD I think he passes WP:PROF (despite having several publications in the predatory Scientific Research Publishing Journal of Modern Physics). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but stub as above. Would the nominator like to give his assessment the subject's citation record? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2016 (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.