Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waldo Vieira


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Waldo Vieira

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to fail WP:PROF and WP:BIO generally. Reliable independent sources do not seem to be forthcoming. jps (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Failure of WP:PROF also some concerns about WP:FRINGE through attempt to use Vieira to slip in "projectology" as a "nascent science". Simonm223 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Can't find a single reliable reference for this guy. Goblin Face (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable objective sources available with which to write an encyclopedic article. (And no, Brazilian tabloid newspapers are not objective or reliable.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't find any Brazilian tabloid listed on the article. Can you point that out for me please? -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was in the article. Searches turn up Brazilian pop media's sensationalistic tabloid treatments of paranormal subjects that mention Vieira . These shouldn't be used as reliable or objective sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:FRINGE. No reliable sources providing any sort of analysis, Second Quantization (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fringe, or not, it is stated on this link of the Library of Congress he is the founder of Projectiology. The sources provided is the Journal of Parapsychology (2004). Since when a peer-reviewed journal isn't a reliable source? -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment An entry in the library of congress is not sufficient to meet WP:PROF notability guidelines. Nor is a single reference in a single journal. That being said, the link to the Journal of Parapsychology that is included in the article is a broken link and doesn't point to any extant article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The "journal of parapsychology" is not a reliable source but a well known parapsychology piece. Peer review isn't reliable when the peers are pseudo-scientists. Regards, Second Quantization (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How is that? How can a journal on pseudo-science be reviewed by any other authority outside the subject of research? On peer-review the refrerre must have similar competence as the author. You are saying a subject can't have notability because it is pseudo-science? Should we also delete all articles on philosophy, religion and astrology? -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Maintain. You guys msut be kidding. This author has published over 50 books, some of them translated to 5 diferent languages. Just by following the links listed on authority control you'll find some of the publications in major libraries around the world. He's also gotten an entry on Who's Who in the 21st Century (2002. p. 784). Sorry, but Google-search is not always the best source for serious subjects. -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Number of books or number of translations mean nothing towards notability. Second Quantization (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Except when it does. I often see long time AfD participants citing Worldcat library holdings and publication counts as a reason to delete an article. I agree though best-seller status and number of books has nothing to do with it, but unfortunately it tends to be an argument used when convenient. The number of books is a sign that there are probably book reviews, which is how notability is determined. -- Green  C  20:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Those people who were writing monster erotica churned out a lot of books too but that's not sufficient grounds for notability in and of itself. The question is more where other people have written about him. Which brings me to the who's who entry... it's a pay-for-space arrangement. International Biographical Centre which makes it not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It took a lot of digging to find the review because the Journal of Parapsychology appears to be defunct - having not published since 2009 and having no web presence at all since 2012 a Fall 2013 edition. I did find it here: [] and honestly, even from the in-universe perspective the fact is that the reviewer says: it is not the perception of this reader that this work is the quintessential guide to lucid projection. If what we have is a weakly-warm review in a single defunct parapsychology journal and a pay-for-space listing in a who's who book that is nowhere near the level of notability required for WP:PROF Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Google-Scholar generates 2.390 hits. According to it his 3 major works has been cited over 20 times each. Most of them in Brazil (Spiritism/Projectiology), but still... You guys still doubt on notoriety? -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 20 times is rather a low count by any normal researchers count. I know many non-notable researchers that have been cited at least 100 times for each of their top three major publication. It indicates nothing. Second Quantization (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Coment. This source is also good for the article: ROCHA, Cristina; VÁSQUEZ, Manuel A. (editors). The Disapora Of Brazilian Religions, pp. 339-362 (Chapter "The Niche Globalization of Projectiology: Cosmology and Internationalization of a Brazilian Parascience", by Anthony D’Andrea). Koninklijke Brill NV, 2013. ISBN 978 90 04 23694 3. --Tenepes (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the GS citation figures cited by AlchemistOfJoy. Absolutely insufficient to come even close to WP:PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Somethin' isn't right here. This subject is not about notability (academics), this is about Notability (author). The guy is only relevant as author, not as physician or professor. -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Then read WP:AUTHOR and stop talking about the cite counts which are very low by all standards. Second Quantization (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Possible failure to meet WP:PROF criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Pass WP:BASIC and Notability criteria: not trivial multiple independent sources, and more possible forthcoming sources in portuguese.--Angelito7 (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I found one book review in a fringe journal, but I don't think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. And per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, we need mainstream sources about him, not just fringe ones, to generate appropriately neutral coverage of the fact that his beliefs are fringe ones, and I don't see any of those. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There you go:
 * AUTHOR criteria 2: ″J. of Parapsychology″ (the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique)
 * AUTHOR criteria 3: ″Xavier's Partnership w/ Vieira″ (the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant collective body of work...)
 * AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 19:54, 23 February 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.