Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moises Lino e Silva (3rd nomination)

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The title will also be protected against further re-creation due to multiple previous deletions and the apparent abuse of multiple accounts in the process. RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moises Lino e Silva[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Moises Lino e Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is almost entirely based on a single primary source (a book the author published). A Google search yields social media and college profiles, and the book that our article mentions. Doesn't seem to agree with WP:N. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article has been built since 2018. The author is an important academic in his field. He has delivered talks and had his work reviewed in the most prestigious institutions around the world. See some examples below:
Here Moises Lino e Silva can be seen in dialogue with the very famous theorist Jack Halberstam: https://www.socialdifference.columbia.edu/events-1/2023/5/25/queer-aqui-together-in-hard-times-rio-de-janeiro
MASP is the most prestigous museum of art in Brazil: https://masp.org.br/palestras/arte-religiao-e-ecologia-na-floresta-sagrada-de-oxum-nigeria
Talk at the oldest Swedish university: https://www.engagingvulnerability.se/seminars-spring2023/
Talk at the one of the most prestigious universities in the UK: https://www.instagram.com/p/CrA_y4PO8fv/?img_index=1
Otherwise, he is the author of several other works and articles, including some in partnership with Harvard University: https://www.routledge.com/Freedom-in-Practice-Governance-Autonomy-and-Liberty-in-the-Everyday/Silva-Wardle/p/book/9780367873325 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/event/sacred-groves-secret-parks-orisha-landscapes-in-brazil-and-west-africa/
A recent article in the general Brazilian press highlights the importance of his work: https://queer.ig.com.br/2023-04-19/como-e-ser-lgbtqia--nas-favelas.html 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The University of Chicago Press is among the most prestigious academic presses in the world in anthropology. 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book in question has been reviewed by DRCLAS/Harvard: https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/a-review-of-minoritarian-liberalism-a-travesti-life-in-a-brazilian-favela/ 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your arguments are mostly not based on the actual applicable policies and guidelines, namely WP:N and WP:NACADEMIC. I will address them one by one:
  • The age of the article is not relevant for determining notability.
  • YouTube is WP:UGC and not a suitable source for establishing notability. This is also a WP:PRIMARY source.
  • The MASP source does not provide in-depth coverage of the individual, it only lists him as the speaker at an event. Arguably also WP:PRIMARY.
  • The same applies for the EV source.
  • Instagram is WP:UGC and not appropriate for establishing notability.
  • "Partnership with Harvard University" does not establish notability; notability is not WP:INHERITED by association. The same applies to association with the University of Chicago Press.
  • The Queer IG article does not cover Lino e Silva in depth, but only tangentially to its primary topic. See also WP:SIGCOV to read about significant coverage.
  • A book review does not establish notability per se, especially because it is unclear how much editorial oversight and fact-checking they are subject to. However, I agree that this is at least something.
Actualcpscm (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SAPIENS Magazine has published his research: https://www.sapiens.org/culture/minoritarian-liberalism/


Delete. The prevailing sentiment in the comments above seems to be that this is a highly influential scholar, someone who has conducted impactful research. That may be the case, but we seem to be forgetting something important: this impact needs to be demonstrated through coverage in reliable secondary sources. WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 does list academic impact as establishing notability, but it must be "demonstrated by independent reliable sources." None of the sources we have seen so far fulfil this requirement. Intuitively, it does seem that this researcher has received some attention, but that needs to be backed up by reliable sources. As long as the arguments for notability of this subject are based on hypothetical fulfilment of WP:NACADEMIC derived from editor interpretation and opinion, as opposed to independent sources, notability is not established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actualcpscm (talk • contribs)

Keep. This is a noteworthy academic. I wish we could foster younger intellectuals, Latino academics, and from the Global South. Moises Lino e Silva seems to be among them. I wish our community would be more constructive in this case. Instead of deletion, we could work together to make this article stronger. For example, I just found another review of the author's main book:

https://allegralaboratory.net/minoritarian-liberalism-a-travesti-life-in-a-brazilian-favela/
I also found a review of the author's book "Freedom in Practice" in the JRAI (the most prestigious anthropology journal in the UK):
https://www.academia.edu/44956086/Parisolis_Review_of_Freedom_in_Practice_Governance_Autonomy_and_Liberty_in_the_Everyday_ Gdohgsd (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC) — Gdohgsd (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
  • Delete. No pass yet of WP:Prof on tiny GS cites for this adjunt (not full) professor. Maybe in ten years time: Salt until then.Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    This information is not accurate. Professor adjunto is the equivalent of Assistant or Associate Professor with tenure in the USA. Once again, there is a bias here against Latin American scholars. Please, re-consider it. Gdohgsd (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC) — Gdohgsd (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
    The point wasn‘t tenure or lack thereof, but the fact that this isn‘t a full professorship, not to mention a named chair as described in NACADEMIC. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or if kept we must trim the promotional pull quotes and bad sources. Of the listed reviews for Minoritarian Liberalism, Gangwar appears to be a personal blog of a grad student, the Jarrin ReVista review appears reliable, jornalbairrosnet may be reliable, cultura930 appears reliable but not very in-depth, and I'm skeptical of the reliability of queer.ig.com and gay.blog.br. The publisher's own site is definitely not independent or reliable for promotional quotes about its own book. So that's one good review (ReVista) and a lot of maybes or worse. The listed but not linked review for Freedom in Practice is doi:10.1111/1467-9655.13089; it is reliable, but I didn't see any others, and the book is apparently a conference proceedings, co-edited with Huon Wardle, not an authored work. With one in-depth reliable review for one book, and one reliable review for an edited collection, this is below my threshold for WP:AUTHOR notability. The fact that there is only one authored book in play makes it unlikely that we would have enough even if more reviews for those books could be shown reliable and in-depth. And there seems no sign of any other WP:PROF-related notability. If we could find enough reliably published and in-depth reviews of Minoritarian Liberalism (not necessarily in English) we might instead consider having an article on the book and redirecting to it, but I'm not convinced that we have enough yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to say this, but I'm not sure you understand how academia works in terms of notability.

There was a vote from Mles2022 here, but it has been removed following WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Gdohgsd. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a valuable article about a Brazilian author and scholar who has published a single-authored book in English with a leading peer-reviewed academic press in the United States (University of Chicago Press). His book has also been translated into Portuguese. Moises Lino e Silva has also co-edited an anthology published with another leading English-language academic press (Routledge). The Wikipedia article on Moises Lino e Silva is well written and informative and all of the information is accurate. It can be improved by adding sections.--Lawrlafo (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have significantly expanded the article, including biographical information, a description of the author's main book, and a revision of the sources.--Lawrlafo (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Although I don't think there is any dispute about whether the article is accurate, your !vote does not address notability. What notability criterion does the subject pass? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria. The merits of an article on the academic will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow.
      1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
      2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
      3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
      4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
      5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
      6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
      7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
      8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
      Gdohgsd (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC) — Gdohgsd (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
  • I was asking Lawrlafo. But there is no sign whatsoever that the subject meets any of the criteria of NPROF. I am uncertain what Lawrlafo was suggesting for notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject clearly meets the first criteria of NPROF, that being "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This is demonstrated by the prestige of the peer-reviewed publications (appearing with University of Chicago Press and Routledge), the fact that the most recent book has been translated into Portuguese and the publication covered by the Brazilian press, and by the reviews and media coverage the books have received internationally (United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Brazil), including in peer-reviewed journals. The reviews and media coverage are fully identified in the references of the article.--Lawrlafo (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Peer-review publications are not independent sources for the purposes of establishing notability of their authors. Translation of a book is a weird one to point out; lots of books are translated, it doesn't have to mean anything for notability of their authors. The problem of the reviews is as Russ Woodroofe mentioned: if anything, they establish notability of the specific work they are concerned with, not its author. SIGCOV of a book is not SIGCOV of its author. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have continued to expand the article, integrating sources regarding the visibility the scholar is achieving (for example, appearing on television), being invited to visiting professorship at Harvard University in the Fall 2023, and increasing media coverage of his work. The scholar's impact in Brazil and internationally is based on his publications but also transcends the publications.--Lawrlafo (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comments above. Lawrlafo (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Arguments this meets WP:NPROF criterion 1 are clearly incorrect. Per Russ Woodroofe, the subject might meet WP:NAUTHOR but for lack of evidence of reviews. At this point notability is not established. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Don't let the presence of sockpuppets in this AFD obscure the fact that there has been a lot of changes to this article since it was originally nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per David Eppstein. Also salt. This is the third recreation of this article. It's a obvious case of WP:SPAM.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly contest and fully disagree with the claim that this article is a case of WP:SPAM. As I have indicated above, this is an extremely well researched article on a person who has clearly met WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. Lino e Silva's concept of "minoritarian liberalism" is an important original scholarly contribution as recognized in the endorsements of the book, its publication with a leading peer-reviewed academic press in the United States, the reviews the book has received in numerous independent reliable sources, the print and media interviews with the author, the translation of the book into Portuguese, and the significant media coverage of the translation in Brazil. The visibility and institutional recognition the author has received transcends his first two published books (Freedom in Practice and Minoritarian Liberalism) and now encompasses a new research project on Nigeria. There are no compelling reasons to delete this article on lack of notability for a person who has already made a major impact to the fields of queer studies, Brazilian (and, more broadly, Latin American and Caribbean) studies, and social sciences, as documented in numerous independent reliable sources in English and Portuguese.----Lawrlafo (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Liz that there has been a lot of positive changes to this article since it was originally nominated. It has been completely rewritten using a vast amount of impressive references. It now meets at least two of the necessary conditions for academic notability: 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources; 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:6591:47ED:3074:2E1D:9A28:821C (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC) — 2804:14C:6591:47ED:3074:2E1D:9A28:821C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment The IP repeats claims made above that the subject meets NPROF criterion 1. I remain firm in my view this is not so. Their Scopus profile is here: [2] 8 documents, 20 citations, and an h index of 2 is about as far short of meeting criterion 1 as could be. This is not a notable academic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that the Humanities and Social Sciences do not follow the same logic as the Natural Sciences in terms of notability. A quantitative measure of citations alone is not enough to decide anything. If you need numbers, I just read something remarkable earlier in this thread:Minoritarian Liberalism is available in more than 140 different libraries around the world: https://www.worldcat.org/title/1298388876 and Freedom in Practice is available in 115 different libraries: https://www.worldcat.org/title/964527538 Given everything I've researched so far, this is a notable scholar in the Humanities and Social Sciences. 2804:14C:6591:47ED:25C7:14D1:AF84:30BD (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)— 2804:14C:6591:47ED:25C7:14D1:AF84:30BD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    It is true that the humanities generally have very low citation rates. However, we cannot use the absence of citations as evidence of notability. Instead, in the humanities we usually go by book reviews rather than journal citations. However, as analyzed above, that falls short in this case as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant if the humanities have different citation patterns to the sciences because we always compare like with like: physics with physics, philosophy with philosophy but never physics with philosophy. The subject's citation record is inadequate even for the humanities. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moises_Lino_e_Silva_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1164485906"