Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabio Dias

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Dias[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)

No claim that means WP:GNG. Lecturer status doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC; a search doesn't reveal coverage in reliable sources; Google Scholar shows at H-factor of 3, suggesting that there is little output (so far in his academic career) and/or that it has had little impact. Being a partner in a hedge manager with AUM of circa £1 million seems insufficient. Klbrain (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Finance, Computing, England, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I disagree that he does not satisfy the notability requirements. He satisfies point 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. How many academics out there have become managing partners of hedge funds and stayed as academics leading their universities towards industry specific training with distinguished institutions such as Bloomberg L.P.? Giving industry talks at international professional summits while teaching their students simultaneously? As an example, Nick Anstead is also “only” a lecturer and yet there is a page for him because of contributions that he made to the outside world. Similarly Ashley Hickson-Lovence, Sanjay Jain, Paul Melo e Castro and Jeremy Munday. I see Dr Dias even more notable than these given the reach and influence of the hedge fund industry. We need to value our teachers that spend more time transferring knowledge and less time making publications just because they are doing more practical things for the students. He has contributed significantly outside of academia (academia meaning publications, which is what the H index is about) in his academic capacity, which is what the notability requirement is about. The H index is just one of many different ways of reaching notability. I disclose that I do not have a personal relationship with Dr Dias, but I was his student last year. We don’t have any professional or personal relationship since. I consulted with other students and we agreed that a Wikipedia page was warranted in his case. Several parents wanted to know more about Dr Fabio Dias during university talks and the right place for them to find this information is exactly an encyclopedia. Contributor892z 12:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Assistant professors (or equivalently in the UK, lecturers) usually do not pass WP:PROF and he seems no exception. Weak citation record [1] definitely fails WP:PROF#C1. No evidence of WP:GNG-based notability. PROF#C7, as argued above, is only for people so famous as being academic experts in some specialty that they are frequently sought after by the media for quotes on stories relating to that specialty, for which we also lack evidence. Keeping one foot in academia and the other in finance is not a notability criterion. Giving talks as an academic is routine and expected, not a notability criterion. The rest of contributor's arguments above reduce to WP:WAX. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t want to leave the impression that I have a conflict of interest on this particular article being published; you can see in my history that I have made other articles too about other academics. Having said that, looks like the only issue with WP:PROF#C7 is that I haven’t presented evidence of him being sought after by national UK media for quotes and opinion as an expert, but I am aware that these exist. I believe WP:ATD-I and WP:DRAFTIFY apply as the article is still quite new and I may have rushed moving this article to the main space. With enough time, I can find between 5-10 independent and significant examples of national media coverage about the subject, and then send the article back for review. Contributor892z (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If as you claimed earlier you were his student, then you are a student at the same institution and you have an institutional COI, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore, I graduated already. I gain nothing promoting the place I graduated from and, frankly, they don’t need me for that. Contributor892z (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. For certain he does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, and the current article does not prove other notability -- please not the word prove. We cannot bend the rules for him as this would open floodgates, notability has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, in many respects it is Guilty until proven innocent in WP:BLP. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He satisfies points 5 and 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. In UK-based systems, that have no tenure-track, the meaning of the title "lecturer" is totally different than what it means in US-based systems. Responsabilities matter more titles.Econbrazil (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) — Econbrazil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
In UK-based systems, the meaning of the title "lecturer" is an entry-level academic position, roughly equivalent to "assistant professor" in US-based systems. It is very far from #C5, which is supposed to mean a step beyond ordinary full professors. The UK has full professors. Lecturers are two or three steps below them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on C#5 but that may have just been a career choice. But I am sure that there is material out there that proves C#7 or GNG, I just need time to search. As I said, I don’t gain anything with getting this article published, but I want to have the chance to set things right by moving this article to draft and adding extra evidence when I have time to find it. Contributor892z (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Common_claims_of_significance_or_importance#ACADEMIC states that a non-professor teacher at an institute of higher learning with a reputation in excellence is enough argument to keep the page as those institutions are not known for employing sub-par academics. University of Surrey is a top 90 university in the world for business and economics, higher rank than [[Pennsylvania State University]], in the US. A top 90 world university don’t hire bad academics. So I call here the WP:PTEST. I saw in the article history that Sanjay Jain was proposed for deletion and kept because he was a non-professor at a top university. Same rules should apply here.Econbrazil (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neither GNG or PROF notability have been established. nf utvol (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found it! I have now added to the article evidence of significant coverage at national level in Brazil. I hope that will settle the case. Contributor892z (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject does not meet any of the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC to be considered sufficiently notable at this time.WmLawson (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2024 (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.