Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulo Pinheiro

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 no consensus. Another two weeks have passed without any addition to the discussion. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Pinheiro

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Curriculum vitae for non-notable scientist. damiens.rf 17:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar shows 7 publications with over 100 citations each (all I believe by the subject) and an h-index of 22, enough to show significant contributions to the subject and I think enough to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics, citation metrics alone, let alone citation metrics from Google, are probably not sufficient to establish notability. In addition, the policy does not give any numeric value for highly cited -- which is frustrating. I looked at some well-known scientists, and their ground-breaking articles are cited in the thousands or tens of thousands of times, not the hundreds. [1], [2]. From my reading, it looks like this person is primarily known for having developed a markup language, but he did that with a group of scholars at Stanford, so it's hard to know what his contribution was. One of his co-authors on that project has documents that have been cited more than 4K times, and journal articles cited in the high three digits, as a comparison.[3]. I think this is less than a slam-dunk, and don't see anything extraordinary about this researcher. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. LaMona (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing some quite possible wp:COI due to the preponderance of SPA's on both the Pinheiro and Provenance Markup Language pages, including User:Pp3223. LaMona (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. User:LaMona seems to be reading Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics in a sense pretty much contrary to what I read it as saying. It fairly clearly accepts citation metrics as an admittedly somewhat imperfect method of establishing notability through measuring academic impact and is mainly concerned with allowing for these imperfections - for instance, taking account of differing expected citation rates in different subjects and, where these rates are low, supplementing or replacing them by other methods of measuring impact. What seems to be the general consensus does not expect citation rates to be at the astronomical levels that User:LaMona cites, but rather at the kind of level where a beginning postgraduate in a related subject at an institution without direct connections with the academic concerned might be expected to come across mentions of them. In this case, I note that the subject of the article actually seems to have slightly higher citation rates than any of the most recent Fields Medallists - and, while I would expect slightly higher citation rates in computer science than in mathematics, I am still inclined to agree with User:David Eppstein that the subject's rates are still at least adequate for notability. Having said that, I do share User:LaMona's concerns about WP:COI - the article as it stands is somewhat over-promotional and, together with the creator's username, this does suggest the possibility of WP:AUTOBIO. If the article is kept, we do not need every detail of his qualifications, career and relatives. PWilkinson (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.