Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renato M. E. Sabbatini (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:12, 10 January 2010

Renato M. E. Sabbatini

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

before nominating this article I noted that User:Upsala did a phenomenal job reviewing the citations for accuracy and tagging the text where questions still exist. The article has significant violations of WP:COI that make it difficult to wade through; in addition, most of the sources are in Portuguese, complicating matters. I removed the most detailed citation in English, which was to a past version of the subject's Wikipedia userpage. He may indeed be notable in Portuguese, but based on my review and Upsala's work I can find no evidence of sufficient notability for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. otherl left 17:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —otherl left 17:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - a bit too flattering and one sided, but of some interest.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There may be sourcing and COI issues, but those are solvable without deletion; but gross overtagging of the article by an apparent sockpuppet with no significant edit history is certainly a signal that there's another agenda playing out here -- especially since many of the sourcing defects appear to reflect the structure rather than the content of the referenced pages (eg, framing disguising actual URLs of specific sources). Nominator's suggestion that language of sources impairs notability is also rather odd. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an acknowledgement that I can't independently verify them. If an editor without a conflict of interest confirms that they confer notability I certainly wouldn't have a problem - but COI issues make it particularly important to know what the sources actually say.--otherl left 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with much of what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz says - there seems to be something unhelpful about the recent editing of this article. Will Beback talk 20:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a matter of principle if a topic is notable in sources of one language it is suitable to write about in any language edition of Wikipedia. We have Portuguese-speaking editors and machine-translation is another possibility. So the question is not "should this be in the Portuguese Wikipedia instead", but rather "does he meet WP:PROF?" From Google Scholar, citations to his work are not high (h-index ~6), but there are other criteria. Fences&Windows 20:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, re "sockpuppetry": Yes, I have edited under another account and continue to do so. That account has a "clean record" and this has nothing to do with deceiving anyone. It's simply a matter of privacy, since my real-world identity is increasingly obvious in association with my other account. I did this after concluding my situation fell under the "Privacy" exception of WP:Multiple_Accounts. The articles I edit under this account are far removed from my work under my other account. There's no "agenda."

Re my extensive tagging: After Sabbatini removed "Like resume" "More footnotes" and "Primary sources" tags from the article without addressing the problems, I responding by tagging the individual statements needed sources to demonstrate how serious the problems are. Please see my exchange with Sabbatini on Talk:Renato_M._E._Sabbatini in which I explained this and suggested that he start adding cites for material he would like to see remain in the article. Since the article's about him, and he wrote it, you'd think he'd have no problem doing that, but it's been almost a week and Sabbatini hasn't done anything (though he's been active on other articles) so I'm going ahead and removing all the uncited material. If Sabbatini insists on continuing to edit his own bio (which he really shouldn't) he can add material back if and when he can provide cites.

I personally was not planning to nominate the article for deletion, at least until seeing what was still in the article after cites were added and uncited material removed. But since Sabbatini's been on notice for some time now, I think the discussion should proceed on the article with uncited material removed.

Upsala (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 *'''Comment'''. As a matter of principle if a topic is notable in sources of one language it is suitable to write about in any language edition of Wikipedia. We have Portuguese-speaking editors and machine-translation is another possibility. So the question is not "should this be in the Portuguese Wikipedia instead", but rather "does he meet [[WP:PROF]]?" From Google Scholar, citations to his work are not high (h-index ~6), but there are other criteria. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:grey;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 20:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
+*First, re "sockpuppetry": Yes, I have edited under another account and continue to do so. That account has a "clean record" and this has nothing to do with deceiving anyone. It's simply a matter of privacy, since my real-world identity is increasingly obvious in association with my other account.  I did this after concluding my situation fell under the "Privacy" exception of [[WP:Multiple_Accounts]]. The articles I edit under this account are far removed from my work under my other account.  There's no "agenda."
+:Re my extensive tagging: After Sabbatini removed "Like resume" "More footnotes" and "Primary sources" tags from the article without addressing the problems, I responding by tagging the individual statements needed sources to demonstrate how serious the problems are.  Please see my exchange with Sabbatini on [[Talk:Renato_M._E._Sabbatini]] in which I explained this and suggested that he start adding cites for material he would like to see remain in the article. Since the article's about him, and he wrote it, you'd think he'd have no problem doing that, but it's been almost a week and Sabbatini hasn't done anything (though he's been active on other articles) so I'm going ahead and removing all the uncited material.  If Sabbatini insists on continuing to edit his own bio (which he really shouldn't) he can add material back ''if and when he can provide cites''.
+:I personally was not planning to nominate the article for deletion, at least until seeing what was still in the article after cites were added and uncited material removed.  But since Sabbatini's been on notice for some time now, I think the discussion should proceed on the article with uncited material removed.
+:[[User:Upsala|Upsala]] ([[User talk:Upsala|talk]]) 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)