- 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. North America 1000 10:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Newton da Costa
- Newton da Costa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has one independent source, which is not about the subject but is a discussion of one paper the subject published. Guy ( Help!) 09:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: With an h-index of 38 according to Google Scholar, a very clear pass of WP:PROF#1 in a field (mathematical logic) that does not generally have high citation rates. The article itself either needs pruning or far better sourcing - it is probably generally accurate, as the topics discussed match the subject's most highly-cited papers, but while the citation rates establish the subject's notability, we still need verification for individual claims. PWilkinson ( talk) 20:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. His Google scholar profile [1] shows a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 and I think the two articles about him linked from this one [2] [3] provide enough reliable and in-depth coverage about him to form the basis of an encyclopedia article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Please cancel the deletion process. He is a major mathematician, and a living legend here in Brazil (I'm not kidding!). See, for example, http://adonaisantanna.blogspot.com.br/p/grandes-nomes-da-ciencia-brasileira.html Juliana Torres Dias ( talk) 04:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep on basis of stunning citation record as above. Nominator is reminded of WP:Before. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:04, 2 March 2016 (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.
- 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. North America 1000 10:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Newton da Costa
- Newton da Costa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has one independent source, which is not about the subject but is a discussion of one paper the subject published. Guy ( Help!) 09:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: With an h-index of 38 according to Google Scholar, a very clear pass of WP:PROF#1 in a field (mathematical logic) that does not generally have high citation rates. The article itself either needs pruning or far better sourcing - it is probably generally accurate, as the topics discussed match the subject's most highly-cited papers, but while the citation rates establish the subject's notability, we still need verification for individual claims. PWilkinson ( talk) 20:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. His Google scholar profile [1] shows a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 and I think the two articles about him linked from this one [2] [3] provide enough reliable and in-depth coverage about him to form the basis of an encyclopedia article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Please cancel the deletion process. He is a major mathematician, and a living legend here in Brazil (I'm not kidding!). See, for example, http://adonaisantanna.blogspot.com.br/p/grandes-nomes-da-ciencia-brasileira.html Juliana Torres Dias ( talk) 04:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep on basis of stunning citation record as above. Nominator is reminded of WP:Before. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:04, 2 March 2016 (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.