Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moisés Espírito Santo


 * 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Moisés Espírito Santo

 * — (View AfD)

This one has WP:COI all over it. First copied directly from the Portuguese Wikipedia as a never-ending WP:COI resumé and thus deleted under WP:CSD. One week later, recreated by a sockpuppet and deleted again. Now it's back (brought by yet another sock), with most of the resumé gone and a small biography written in English. No reference to the contributions that made this professor "very influential". Also poor sources, original research, and did I mention WP:COI? Hús ö  nd  02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be vanity and essentially a resume, doesn't sufficiently establish notability and uses unjustified POV terms. Terribly formatted and badly translated, too.  --The Way 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep He's not up for AfD on the Portuguese WP, I think they'd know if he's non-notable. (yeah, I know, WP:INN, but they're just as hip on deleting non-notables as here). Also, since when has an article being poorly written in English been a reason for deletion? He certainly seems to have a good number of published books and articles to his credit. Tubezone 03:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Portuguese Wikipedia is far less efficient than the English Wikipedia. It can be months until somebody notices the article there or even bother to do something about it. The poor English is the least of the concerns here btw.-- Hús  ö  nd  03:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks like they have about 20 AfD's per day, which is about proportional to the number of articles they have (1/8 that of the English WP), but that's really neither here nor there, I can read enough Portuguese to tell you it looks like the guy's written a number of textbooks, including a 10,000 word Phoenician - Portuguese dictionary and a 535 page textbook on 5000 Years Of Western Culture. Looks like he edits a magazine at the New University of Lisbon, too. (I got that off the University's web site) If this article was referenced properly in English, I have little doubt it'd be obvious he passes WP:BIO and WP:PROF.
 * If he's an important professor then obviously he has done a lot of work, publications, etc. That does not grant notability per se though, and furthermore the article lacks references as you say and it would require full rewritting to be kept.-- Hús  ö  nd  05:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Voce pode ler o portugues melhor que eu! It looks to me that if a US professor had that much stuff on his CV, he'd be a shoo-in per WP:PROF, there's nothing in WP:PROF that says the publications have to be in  English, or the citations, or that the article needs to be well written. I'm not sure I buy the WP:COI argument either, why would you think he wrote this himself? If you think he's non-notable, why haven't you PPE'd him on the PT WP? I think that'd be a no-brainer, if he had been determined to be NN in the Portuguese WP, an AfD here would be a gimme. Tubezone 07:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sim, posso ler o português e todo ele me diz conflito de interesse. It seems obvious that either the professor himself, or someone very enthusiastic about him would write and recreate this article so avidly. Have you seen many WP:COI articles lately? Regarding the Portuguese Wikipedia, it's a sister project but we don't abid by each other's decisions. We have different policies and something being included in one doesn't grant inclusion in the other per se. Besides, the Portuguese Wikipedia doesn't function as effectively as the English Wikipedia. Bad stuff can be kept there for ages until someone even cares about it. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I left the project.-- Hús  ö  nd  15:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above, and put pt:Moisés Espírito Santo on the chopping block too. MER-C 04:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a thought, I've been looking for um razao practicar o portugues. I'll probably be the laughingstock of every university from the Pantanal to Porto, but the question of whether this fellow is notable or not would get uma resposta definida. Tubezone 07:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Has written multiple books and articles. Passes WP:PROF.  --Oakshade 00:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, currently it does not. No sources confirm the guideline criteria that establish that his academic work is "significant or well-known".-- Hús  ö  nd  02:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He's published 16 books in Portuguese, a number of which have had multiple printings (unless you are saying what's on his article in the PT WP is inaccurate or a hoax?), and it looks like several are university textbooks (which would qualify him per WP:PROF). Really, this fellow looks at least as notable as Rodryg Dunin, who survived an AfD not too long ago. Tubezone 09:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that he's published what he says he did. But the article on the English Wikipedia is just a WP:COI pool, and if all the conflict of interest were removed, we'd be left with a stub that lacked sources and asserted no notability. Furthermore, the article on the Portuguese Wikipedia does not state what sort of books are those. It's very common for university professors in Portugal to publish or co-publish a lot of work that in the end has little impact. Only good sources documenting his work would suffice to prove any notability. I should once again remind of WP:COI, WP:OR and WP:RS, Wikipedia policies that I presented as reason for deletion and who aren't being contested.-- Hús  ö  nd  15:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  I certainly think foreign language sources can be used to support notability, but I am concerned when there appear to be no English language sources. --Kubigula (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find any english-language sources of his work either, and articles created by editors contributing a single page are always suspicious. DrKiernan 15:51, 12 December 2006 (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.