The result was keep. (non-admin closure) voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Sources used are all primary: either interviews quoting him, his profiles on university websites, or even his research articles. His personal website lists
multiple media appearances, but they are all either interviews or articles by his university, so no independent secondary sources here. The best sources could be
this one which repeatedly quotes Mies on his research and even has a paragraph quoting a researcher critical of Mies' work, and
this one which discusses his team's research in detail and briefly quotes him. However, neither seems to rise to the level of a full secondary source significantly covering him.
The only other things found in a quick
WP:BEFORE are, comparatively, not very interesting:
a mention as contributor in a book in Google Books, more databases
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4],
a team presentation and his research articles on Google Scholar. Nothing close to establishing notability.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 22:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. He is widely cited in Brazilian media as an academic expert in a niche area: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Weitkemp ( talk) 14:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's helpful to share sources that can help establish notability but it is unrealistic to list 34 as if participants have the time to check each one.
User:Weitkemp can you narrow that down to 3 or 4 that best illustrate your argument to Keep this article? And while it doesn't really matter when an article subject received their PhD, it is more likely that an academic would have receive sufficient coverage when they have progressed further in their career.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear where this discussion stands now that the nominator is arguing to Keep this article but hasn't withdrawn their nomination. With some editors advocating Delete, it wouldn't lead to a Speedy Keep here but it might make a difference in how editors are viewing the nom's argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Sources used are all primary: either interviews quoting him, his profiles on university websites, or even his research articles. His personal website lists
multiple media appearances, but they are all either interviews or articles by his university, so no independent secondary sources here. The best sources could be
this one which repeatedly quotes Mies on his research and even has a paragraph quoting a researcher critical of Mies' work, and
this one which discusses his team's research in detail and briefly quotes him. However, neither seems to rise to the level of a full secondary source significantly covering him.
The only other things found in a quick
WP:BEFORE are, comparatively, not very interesting:
a mention as contributor in a book in Google Books, more databases
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4],
a team presentation and his research articles on Google Scholar. Nothing close to establishing notability.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 22:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. He is widely cited in Brazilian media as an academic expert in a niche area: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Weitkemp ( talk) 14:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's helpful to share sources that can help establish notability but it is unrealistic to list 34 as if participants have the time to check each one.
User:Weitkemp can you narrow that down to 3 or 4 that best illustrate your argument to Keep this article? And while it doesn't really matter when an article subject received their PhD, it is more likely that an academic would have receive sufficient coverage when they have progressed further in their career.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear where this discussion stands now that the nominator is arguing to Keep this article but hasn't withdrawn their nomination. With some editors advocating Delete, it wouldn't lead to a Speedy Keep here but it might make a difference in how editors are viewing the nom's argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)