Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octavio Augusto Ceva Antunes
- 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 keep. joe deckertalk to me 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Octavio Augusto Ceva Antunes[edit]
- Octavio Augusto Ceva Antunes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable guy. He did a nice work but he is only mentioned in media because of his death in an aircraft incident. Damiens.rf 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has he published any journal articles? What does Brazilian media say about him? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Before the accident? Nothing, according to Google news. The article mentions "over 200 scientific articles". If we could source this (and make sure these are important publications), that could be a case for keeping. --Damiens.rf 19:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has he published any journal articles? What does Brazilian media say about him? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 200 articles are already mentioned in the link. I think that should be enough to consider him notable. Media mentions may be low, but don't forget that we are talking about an academic, appearences in media are not a mandatory part of their career as with politicians or musicians, so it would be out of place to expect that type of coverage MBelgrano (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep. Just publishing articles is not enough. What is needed is that they should have been widely cited. A click on the scholar link above shows that they have not been. I appreciate the personal tragedy here but Wikipedia is not the place to publish obituaries. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: WoS indicates sufficient work to indicate noted scholar and pass of WP:prof. WoS reports 189 pieces of work with 1,468 and a h-index 19. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- If the WoS data can be verified I will change my vote, but on GS there are several Antunes with different initials. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't know how to verify WoS other than by cutting and pasting all the refs and the citation counts. But that might be a bit o.t.t. All the refs are for Antunes OAC and chemistry and look right (his h-index of 19 is quite solid - he has 50 articles with 10 or more cites!) Google scholar is better with Antunes OAC, Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Thanks for this info. I get an h index of 13 on GS, but WoS should be better. The field is a fairly well-cited one. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't know how to verify WoS other than by cutting and pasting all the refs and the citation counts. But that might be a bit o.t.t. All the refs are for Antunes OAC and chemistry and look right (his h-index of 19 is quite solid - he has 50 articles with 10 or more cites!) Google scholar is better with Antunes OAC, Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- If the WoS data can be verified I will change my vote, but on GS there are several Antunes with different initials. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2011 (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.