Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joana D'Arc Félix de Souza

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. Noting the BLP concerns. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joana D'Arc Félix de Souza[edit]

[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)

not notable as a chemist. 4 papers on organic synthesis of alkaloids with her thesis advisor, Google Scholar citations from 20 to 40. The later work on reusing wastes is trivial, and uncited. I don't think it's enough of a scandal to meet WP:CRIME, and I'd remove on BLP grounds. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof totally. Nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I had some concerns about this article, which I brought to DGG as the expert on all things academic. I was unable to find coverage of her work outside the degree scandal and we appear to be firmly in BLP1E territory. No viable merge target. Star Mississippi 23:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negative BLP fails WP:PERP because there is insufficient notability independent of her alleged wrongdoing. In particular, her citation record is not good enough for WP:PROF#C1. It also doesn't help that we only have newspaper allegations of wrongdoing without any determination of the matter. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by DGG, David Eppstein, Xxanthippe & Star Mississippi, I too do not see any criterion from WP:PROF met. Celestina007 (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the BLP issues as well as the clear failure to meet NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have already said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:00, 16 October 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.