Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepler de Souza Oliveira

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler de Souza Oliveira

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

Kepler de Souza Oliveira is not a notable person and I cannot find any reliable sources pertaining to him. The only semi-notable source was the Brazilian Academy of Sciences but even that doesn't explain much about his importance. FiendYT (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Members of national scientific academies are usually considered notable per WP:PROF criterion 3. There are some good references coming up for me, so I will add them. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the author of the article, and what I can say is that he has made many discoveries in astronomy, and as you can see on Google Scholar there are many citations to his papers. Even on Wikipedia itself he is cited many times; just an example: it was he and his research partners who discovered that BPM 37093 is a variable star (this is mentioned in Wikipedia's article!). I have some "paper sources" (not on-line), like magazines, such as Ciência Hoje (in Portuguese), that talk about his discoveries. If I'm not wrong he was president of the Brazilian Society of Astronomy for some years too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendPanda (talk • contribs) 06:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Membership in the Brazilian Academy of Sciences should pass WP:PROF#C3, but he also has a case for #C6 as president of the Brazilian Astronomical Society. Google scholar finds some citations under "Kepler de Souza" although not well-cited enough to meet a third WP:PROF criterion. Regardless, even one should be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EricEnfermero above Jacona (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Since when is an Academy of Science a "semi notable" source? Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:20, 3 December 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.