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. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Failure of
WP:PROF also some concerns about
WP:FRINGE through attempt to use Vieira to slip in "projectology" as a "nascent science".
Simonm223 (
talk) 20:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Can't find a single reliable reference for this guy.
Goblin Face (
talk) 01:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete No reliable objective sources available with which to write an encyclopedic article. (And no, Brazilian tabloid newspapers are not objective or reliable.) -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 16:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: I can't find any Brazilian tabloid listed on the article. Can you point that out for me please? --
AlchemistOfJoy (
talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I didn't say it was in the article. Searches turn up Brazilian pop media's sensationalistic tabloid treatments of paranormal subjects that mention Vieira
[1]. These shouldn't be used as reliable or objective sources. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 18:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: Fringe, or not, it is stated on this link of the Library of Congress he is the founder of Projectiology. The sources provided is the Journal of Parapsychology (2004). Since when a peer-reviewed journal isn't a reliable source? --
AlchemistOfJoy (
talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment An entry in the library of congress is not sufficient to meet
WP:PROF notability guidelines. Nor is a single reference in a single journal. That being said, the link to the Journal of Parapsychology that is included in the article is a broken link and doesn't point to any extant article.
Simonm223 (
talk) 19:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
The "journal of parapsychology" is not a reliable source but a well known
parapsychology piece. Peer review isn't reliable when the peers are pseudo-scientists. Regards,
Second Quantization (
talk) 03:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
How is that? How can a journal on pseudo-science be reviewed by any other authority outside the subject of research? On peer-review the refrerre must have similar competence as the author. You are saying a subject can't have notability because it is pseudo-science? Should we also delete all articles on philosophy, religion and astrology? --
AlchemistOfJoy (
talk) 15:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Maintain. You guys msut be kidding. This author has published over 50 books, some of them translated to 5 diferent languages. Just by following the links listed on
authority control you'll find some of the publications in major libraries around the world. He's also gotten an entry on Who's Who in the 21st Century (2002. p. 784). Sorry, but Google-search is not always the best source for serious subjects. --
AlchemistOfJoy (
talk) 18:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Number of books or number of translations mean nothing towards notability.
Second Quantization (
talk) 03:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Except when it does. I often see long time AfD participants citing Worldcat library holdings and publication counts as a reason to delete an article. I agree though best-seller status and number of books has nothing to do with it, but unfortunately it tends to be an argument used when convenient. The number of books is a sign that there are probably book reviews, which is how notability is determined. --
GreenC 20:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment Those people who were writing
monster erotica churned out a lot of books too but that's not sufficient grounds for notability in and of itself. The question is more where other people have written about him. Which brings me to the who's who entry... it's a pay-for-space arrangement.
International Biographical Centre which makes it not a reliable source.
Simonm223 (
talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment It took a lot of digging to find the review because the Journal of Parapsychology appears to be defunct - having not published since 2009 and having no web presence at all since 2012 a Fall 2013 edition. I did find it here: [
[2]] and honestly, even from the in-universe perspective the fact is that the reviewer says: it is not the perception of this reader that this work is the quintessential guide to lucid projection. If what we have is a weakly-warm review in a single defunct parapsychology journal and a pay-for-space listing in a who's who book that is nowhere near the level of notability required for
WP:PROFSimonm223 (
talk) 20:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Google-Scholar generates
2.390 hits. According to it his 3 major works has been cited over 20 times each. Most of them in Brazil (Spiritism/Projectiology), but still... You guys still doubt on notoriety? --
AlchemistOfJoy (
talk) 22:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
20 times is rather a low count by any normal researchers count. I know many non-notable researchers that have been cited at least 100 times for each of their top three major publication. It indicates nothing.
Second Quantization (
talk) 03:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete based on the GS citation figures cited by AlchemistOfJoy. Absolutely insufficient to come even close to WP:PROF. --
Randykitty (
talk) 22:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Then read
WP:AUTHOR and stop talking about the cite counts which are very low by all standards.
Second Quantization (
talk) 03:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Possible failure to meet
WP:PROF criteria
is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Pass
WP:BASIC and
Wikipedia:Notability criteria: not trivial multiple independent sources, and more possible forthcoming sources in portuguese.--
Angelito7 (
talk) 11:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. I found one
book review in a fringe journal, but I don't think that's enough for
WP:AUTHOR. And per
WP:FRINGE and
WP:NPOV, we need mainstream sources about him, not just fringe ones, to generate appropriately neutral coverage of the fact that his beliefs are fringe ones, and I don't see any of those. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
There you go:
AUTHOR criteria 2:
″J. of Parapsychology″(the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique)
AUTHOR criteria 3:
″Xavier's Partnership w/ Vieira″(the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant collective body of work...)
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 delete. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Failure of
WP:PROF also some concerns about
WP:FRINGE through attempt to use Vieira to slip in "projectology" as a "nascent science".
Simonm223 (
talk) 20:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Can't find a single reliable reference for this guy.
Goblin Face (
talk) 01:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete No reliable objective sources available with which to write an encyclopedic article. (And no, Brazilian tabloid newspapers are not objective or reliable.) -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 16:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: I can't find any Brazilian tabloid listed on the article. Can you point that out for me please? --
AlchemistOfJoy (
talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I didn't say it was in the article. Searches turn up Brazilian pop media's sensationalistic tabloid treatments of paranormal subjects that mention Vieira
[1]. These shouldn't be used as reliable or objective sources. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 18:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: Fringe, or not, it is stated on this link of the Library of Congress he is the founder of Projectiology. The sources provided is the Journal of Parapsychology (2004). Since when a peer-reviewed journal isn't a reliable source? --
AlchemistOfJoy (
talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment An entry in the library of congress is not sufficient to meet
WP:PROF notability guidelines. Nor is a single reference in a single journal. That being said, the link to the Journal of Parapsychology that is included in the article is a broken link and doesn't point to any extant article.
Simonm223 (
talk) 19:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
The "journal of parapsychology" is not a reliable source but a well known
parapsychology piece. Peer review isn't reliable when the peers are pseudo-scientists. Regards,
Second Quantization (
talk) 03:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
How is that? How can a journal on pseudo-science be reviewed by any other authority outside the subject of research? On peer-review the refrerre must have similar competence as the author. You are saying a subject can't have notability because it is pseudo-science? Should we also delete all articles on philosophy, religion and astrology? --
AlchemistOfJoy (
talk) 15:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Maintain. You guys msut be kidding. This author has published over 50 books, some of them translated to 5 diferent languages. Just by following the links listed on
authority control you'll find some of the publications in major libraries around the world. He's also gotten an entry on Who's Who in the 21st Century (2002. p. 784). Sorry, but Google-search is not always the best source for serious subjects. --
AlchemistOfJoy (
talk) 18:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Number of books or number of translations mean nothing towards notability.
Second Quantization (
talk) 03:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Except when it does. I often see long time AfD participants citing Worldcat library holdings and publication counts as a reason to delete an article. I agree though best-seller status and number of books has nothing to do with it, but unfortunately it tends to be an argument used when convenient. The number of books is a sign that there are probably book reviews, which is how notability is determined. --
GreenC 20:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment Those people who were writing
monster erotica churned out a lot of books too but that's not sufficient grounds for notability in and of itself. The question is more where other people have written about him. Which brings me to the who's who entry... it's a pay-for-space arrangement.
International Biographical Centre which makes it not a reliable source.
Simonm223 (
talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment It took a lot of digging to find the review because the Journal of Parapsychology appears to be defunct - having not published since 2009 and having no web presence at all since 2012 a Fall 2013 edition. I did find it here: [
[2]] and honestly, even from the in-universe perspective the fact is that the reviewer says: it is not the perception of this reader that this work is the quintessential guide to lucid projection. If what we have is a weakly-warm review in a single defunct parapsychology journal and a pay-for-space listing in a who's who book that is nowhere near the level of notability required for
WP:PROFSimonm223 (
talk) 20:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Google-Scholar generates
2.390 hits. According to it his 3 major works has been cited over 20 times each. Most of them in Brazil (Spiritism/Projectiology), but still... You guys still doubt on notoriety? --
AlchemistOfJoy (
talk) 22:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
20 times is rather a low count by any normal researchers count. I know many non-notable researchers that have been cited at least 100 times for each of their top three major publication. It indicates nothing.
Second Quantization (
talk) 03:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete based on the GS citation figures cited by AlchemistOfJoy. Absolutely insufficient to come even close to WP:PROF. --
Randykitty (
talk) 22:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Then read
WP:AUTHOR and stop talking about the cite counts which are very low by all standards.
Second Quantization (
talk) 03:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Possible failure to meet
WP:PROF criteria
is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Pass
WP:BASIC and
Wikipedia:Notability criteria: not trivial multiple independent sources, and more possible forthcoming sources in portuguese.--
Angelito7 (
talk) 11:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. I found one
book review in a fringe journal, but I don't think that's enough for
WP:AUTHOR. And per
WP:FRINGE and
WP:NPOV, we need mainstream sources about him, not just fringe ones, to generate appropriately neutral coverage of the fact that his beliefs are fringe ones, and I don't see any of those. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
There you go:
AUTHOR criteria 2:
″J. of Parapsychology″(the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique)
AUTHOR criteria 3:
″Xavier's Partnership w/ Vieira″(the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant collective body of work...)
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.