Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenceslau Geraldes Teixeira


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wenceslau Geraldes Teixeira

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't indicate notability sufficient to meet WP:PROF, and no reliable sources JD554 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have since included more sources that prove that Teixeira is a reputable scientist. It is important that this page remain in Wikipedia because Teixeira is an important Brazilian scientist who does not have an English biography. He has been cited in the New York Times and is in the process of publishing a book. There is irrefutable evidence that he is an important scientific figure and it is crucial to his research that his biography remain available to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreaphill (talk • contribs) 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The New York Times article refers to him as "Wenceslau Teixeira, a soil scientist who is in charge of the effort." --Eastmain (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A mention in passing in the NYT does not constitute notability. Teixeira is a rather recent PhD and associate professor, so for him to be shown notable, some really reliable and independent sources would be needed. The fact that he "is in the process of writing a book" is not relevant, neither is the assertion (rather improbable anyway) that "it is crucial to his research that his biography remain available to the public". --Crusio (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As far as I can tell, there is not enough here to pass either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. For passing WP:PROF one would have to demonstrate either high citability of his research in scholarly publications or to show that he is frequently quoted in the conventional mass media as an academic expert. The NYT reference goes a little way towards the latter, but is certainly insufficient. As for the citability of his research, the GoogleScholar search gives only 3 papers with citations in double digits, at 31, 27, 22 and then a few single digits after that, with the h-index of about 5. That seems rather too thin for WP:PROF. For passing WP:BIO one would have to see significant coverage of him personally and again the NYT article is insufficient there. Nsk92 (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not established by independent sources. Biography cited in article was provided by the subject of the article. WWGB (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The NYT article is quite sufficient for the notability of its actual subject, the cerrado research center at Embrapa. But he is just head of one of the divisions there, and only mentioned in a single paragraph of the article. That';s not significant coverage. DGG (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per Nsk92, DGG & Crusio. He is not the subject of the NYT article, not everyone whose name is mentioned once in that newspaper is automatically merits an encyclopedia biography.  Fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2008 (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.