Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fábio Rodrigues de Moura

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. Daniel (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fábio Rodrigues de Moura

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Article not covered by WP:RS. Only some mentions in minor media outlets and in academic websites. More symptomatic yet is the fact that, despite being Brazilian, he has not article in the pt.WP. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 11:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of citations for WP:NPROF C1, nor of other notability. Looks WP:TOOSOON for this 2016 PhD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep procedural~~: It seems nothing was done WP:BEFORE bringing this to AfD, which is a violation of the very strong guideline to consider alternatives first. Not even a PROD seems to have been attempted. The delete argument made by Russ above is not good enough: Not meeting C1 does not mean NACADEMIC is not met. We can't delete based on lack of citations alone. Other things needs to be taken into account. The article does have a lot of references. Dr. Universe (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A PROD is not required before an AfD, and indeed is not an alternative to deletion. What notability criterion do you think the subject meets? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:PROF#C1 or any other notability criterion. There is no procedural problem with the nomination; "consider alternatives" means to think about whether it is possible to save the article, not to go through other procedures first. Having thought about whether it is possible to save this article, my opinion is: probably not. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2021 (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.