Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Silva


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Rodrigo Silva

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable creationist. I couldn't find any sources to say what his position at the "Adventist University Center of São Paulo" is (or what exactly UNASP is for that matter), nor could I find a citation record to speak of, so doesn't meet WP:PROF. No independent sources in the article, and I couldn't find any additional ones. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete WP:FRINGE academic without sufficient mainstream sources to provide a properly neutral take on his work. His employer, the Brazil Adventist University second campus, is insufficiently notable to warrant more than a redlinked line in List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral -- The subject has impressive qualifications, including two doctorates and has (apparently) produced 3 books. Some of the content of the article looks to me to be designed as ATTACK, including the use of the word "pseudoscientific", which is frequently used of creationists without the writer having investigating exactly what the subject is arguing.  I am however dubious whether it is not TOOSOON for an article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Possessing degrees does not confer notability (I mean, I've got three of 'em, and I'm not notable). "WP:FRINGE academic without sufficient mainstream sources to provide a properly neutral take on his work" sounds exactly accurate to me. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been listed at Fringe theories/Noticeboard. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2017 (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.