Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Lúcia de Oliveira Falcón


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Maria Lúcia de Oliveira Falcón

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage on reliable or independent sources. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  SirEdimon  Dimmi!!! 04:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  SirEdimon  Dimmi!!! 04:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  SirEdimon  Dimmi!!! 04:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Searching Google Scholar found only one uncited publication; maybe I am trying the wrong version of her name, but I couldn't find evidence of passing WP:PROF. That said, copying and pasting the identical nomination statement on seven rapid-fire AfDs       doesn't make a strong case that the nominator has considered these cases individually or done the searching requested by WP:BEFORE. So although I tend to agree with the nominator in this case, I think a trout may still be due. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. She appears to have also been the president of Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária, a Brazilian government agency, and to have held several other senior positions at both state and federal levels.. She's also authored a number of books, according to worldcat. pburka (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT (at least) for now. No sign of WP:NPROF C1, and the article doesn't make any case for notability, or include much of what an eventual article would include.  I don't think the government positions mentioned by  automatically confer notability, although it is possible that news coverage can be found for GNG – in a limited search, I saw only passing mentions (but a good search probably requires someone with language proficiency).  The books look to be held by so few libraries that I would not expect a pass of WP:NAUTHOR.  Watching this discussion in case better evidence of notability arises.  I hope the nominator did a careful WP:BEFORE on each article before batching for AfD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , As I said for David Eppstein here. This articles were all created by the same accounts, which I believe are part of a paid-accounts scheme. They all related to the Federal University of Sergipe. As I'm also an editor at the PT.WP this accounts caught my attention. SirEd  Dimmi!!! 03:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. As an appointee MundoGeo profile to the "top eschelon" by a president of the country (Dilma Rousseff), I would think that position parallels the US Secretary of Agriculture, but I'm not certain that presidential cabinets count in our Notability (shouldn't they?). I think if the article were kept, there would also be more time for Portuguese speakers to flesh out the article. LovelyLillith (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Per User:Pburka. But note that the istituto is a government agency in the Department of Agrarian Development, so she's not the equivalent of the Secretary of Agriculture, but a step further down. A US figure with this profile would probably have a wiki article, but more source material is produced in the States... Furius (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I wasn't able to find any substantive source material, and I'm unconvinced her post is inherently notable, given that it's clearly not a cabinet-level post. That said, many of us are probably hampered by a lack of Portuguese, so I'm open to persuasion. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:09, 17 August 2021 (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.