Sérgio Trindade ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I created this page, which had been previously deleted following a deletion discussion in April as "Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or other notability criteria; references are to death". I would object that this is rather questionable; besides being part of the panel that was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Trindade held various positions of importance within UN commissions and there are several references to him before his death, such as instance https://polarconnection.org/profiles-advisory-bo/sergio-c-trindade/ or http://webtv.un.org/watch/world-chronicle-253-sergio-trindade-centre-for-science-and-technology-for-development/5762415228001/?term= or https://www.unmultimedia.org/avlibrary/asset/2121/2121041/ or https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-45670-1_2 or https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1326570 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9RsPPGD69I.. I do not know how was the old, deleted page (not made by me) and if it was less detailed than the one I created; however, the new page I created was deleted in a few hours through speedy deletion, without a new discussion. Pesqara ( talk) 14:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Can we get a temporary undelete? The sources above aren't great, but the question is if G4 applies. And on top of that, I've got to say if this guy isn't notable, something is probably wrong with our notability guidelines. PhD from MIT, served on the IPCC (which won a Nobel while he was on it I think), and a member of Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment I think. I'm struggling to find sources that would meet our guidelines for a biography, ... Hobit ( talk) 15:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • As you know, our guidelines require that article subjects be discussed in reliable secondary sources, so just because you think someone should be notable based on their résumé doesn't mean they would necessarily be notable. That being said, I'd also like an undelete. There were a couple sources presented in the AfD too. SportingFlyer T· C 15:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
    • yep. I suspect we aren't going to get there, but that makes me sad. Hobit ( talk) 21:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
      • No reason why you can't look for sources to get the article over the line though :) SportingFlyer T· C 22:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Already had. Wasn't much that wasn't linked above. A few short obituaries, but that's it. Hobit ( talk) 00:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn the G4. I haven't seen the deleted article, only the temporarily undeleted one, but the temporarily undeleted one should at least be restored unless there is another AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse After looking at both versions, the articles are substantially identical enough that WP:G4 is the correct result. The biggest difference is the newer version does have more sources, but the AfD was pretty clear in its result. SportingFlyer T· C 22:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• That's a completely ridiculous outcome. We're keeping articles about people who played twenty minutes in a professional sports match, but we're deleting articles about Nobel Prize winners who're on the board of the IPCC? That's insane. Overturn and restore because, in the context of the other decisions we make, that AfD reached an utterly unreasonable result.— S Marshall  T/ C 00:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, I'm hoping for a WP:IAR keep if a listed as an AfD. Hobit ( talk) 00:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)typos fixed that made this impossible to read. Hobit ( talk) 04:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • (edit conflict) Well, technically, from 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, s incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: 'X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.'" This is an English-language blurb - looks like he was the coordinating author on a chapter of a report from 2000. Not trying to minimise anything, but almost all of hits were his obituary and the rest of the hits didn't appear independent. This would explain why he didn't have anyone try to start an article until he unfortunately passed away. SportingFlyer T· C 00:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • He would be a co-ordinating author within the meaning of that article, and not just a contributor or scientist who was involved with the report.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
      • With all respect, I just want to make sure you read that correctly - the full blurb says IPCC as an organisation won the Nobel, not any of the associated individuals. Your response to me makes it seem like you are adding an additional category "above" scientist, which does not appear to be the case. If this is restored, we need to make absolutely clear he did not win the Nobel prize. SportingFlyer T· C 12:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
        • The award was for "efforts to build up and disseminate... knowledge about man-made climate change." The IPCC is an organization, so it's made of pieces of paper and polite legal fictions. It didn't build up and disseminate knowledge. People did that. It only remains to identify which people.
          The IPCC has a lot of authors: there are literally thousands. It's clearly disingenuous to describe each of them as a Nobel Prize laureate. The most senior level of author is "lead author" or "co-ordinating author". I accept that there are more than 400 such people. But if it's not them who won half the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for the IPCC, then nobody did.— S Marshall  T/ C 13:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
          • That's a correct statement, as long as "nobody" refers to people and not the organisation - "nobody" won half of that award. SportingFlyer T· C 14:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• weak overturn speedy probably won't make it at AfD, but enough new sources (and new text ) to make it worth discussing and to not be a G4. Hobit ( talk) 00:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Deleted on notability grounds, and new article presented additional, significant sources, so a G4 speedy deletion is obviously indefensible. Really, a complete no brainer. Wily D 19:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn the speedy deletion, which may be technically defensible procedurally, but has led to a problematic result. Someone could start a new AfD if desired, though I'd frankly prefer that they wouldn't: applying my own simple metric for deletion, the encyclopedia is of better quality with the inclusion of this article than without it. Note that if there's an "endorse" result here, then the formally proper procedure would be to DRV the orginal AfD with a view to relisting it. That would take weeks of bureaucracy to get us to the same place, so it shouldn't be required. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• No, that's not necessary. The G4 isn't procedureally defensible, and was already well on it's way to be overturned here on it's on merits; so there's no need to overturn the original AfD (whether it was correctly decided or not, it's no longer relevant). Wily D 13:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn the speedy and agree with NYB that this is an article whose content belongs on the encyclopedia. At AfD it would probably be a weak keep, but have to imagine there are enough sources to get there. StarM 23:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• No objection to overturning, sorry I caused a kerfuffle with the G4 nomination. I doubt it will pass at AfD, but clearly there is enough contention here that it warrants discussion. I agree with NYB that closing this --> DRV would bureaucracy for the sake for bureaucracy. VQuakr ( talk) 00:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• It was a clear and defensible G4 in my mind, so no need to apologise - a bit of variance though so may be best for an AfD. SportingFlyer T· C 14:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply