Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduardo Reck Miranda (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eduardo Reck Miranda

Self-aggrandizing vanity page for the academic. Fails WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO. Possible fail on WP:PROF (Is the subject more widely published than the average academic? Contrary to claims in previous discussion, MIT search yielded zero results) Subject directly links to self-composed autobiographical page from his official website, exploiting wikipedia for advertising/self-promotion [1] (i.e. the page violates WP:NOT) Notice that page reads like a CV, cataloguing a list of the subject's jobs. Article has already been proposed for deletion. However, all things considered, the article seems to me such a blatant misuse of wikipedia that it warrants, I feel, further consideration. Pathlessdesert 17:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Bigtop 17:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite It was a unanimous Keep on last AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eduardo_Reck_Miranda. The MIT search is behaving oddly - see Google [2] Also Google Scholar shows 60 publications including 4 books [3] Dlyons493 Talk 00:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, pending reliable citations. This started out as an autobiography, but has subsequently been edited by several other people. DVAIN notwithstanding, I would like to see reliable sources that establish (a) that he has over 100 research publications, (b) that his books are standard references of the field (eg., textbooks), and (c) verifiably, that the concerts where his music has been performed are major or notable venues. Delete if these citations are not provided in the course of the AfD. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Selection and performance at events such as ICMC [4] are typical for the average academic/ composer working in this field and do not signify notability. I see no evidence either that publications meet above criteria. To all appearances an average non-notable academic. --Pathlessdesert 13:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ugh - vanity page of a minor, nn academic. Eusebeus 16:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Despite the strong whiff of self-promotion, books exist and one is in its second edition. The "100 articles" claim is a bit of an exaggeration though, since most of them are in proceedings. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just got a copy of "Sound Synthesis for the Electronic Musician...one of the shabbiest knock-offs I've ever seen; (Libellous comments here removed by Crockspot, per WP:BLP), and the original parts are a chaotic read. Even the English usage is poor. The review in the Computer Music Journal was similarly bad (go check it out). Please delete this vanity page; the guy's already got his professorship (somehow), he doesn't need to sell himself anymore, does he? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.188.241.129 (talk • contribs).

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Currently fails WP:WWIN, WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO, WP:CR. Let me know if rewritten with credible references. -AED 06:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He is notable despite being a bit annoying. He has been the subject of significant press coverage, as listed at http://neuromusic.soc.plymouth.ac.uk/ As well, that page lists lots of scholarly publications and a bunch of recordings, which taken together add up to notability to me. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as he is obviosly notable. Carioca 06:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, pending reliable citations as per Kaustuv Chaudhuri. I've marked the page with a few {{fact}} in the hope that someone will provide citations. Jayvdb 06:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self-promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep needs clean up, but the publications make him noteworthy. Nickieee 22:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Please just delete it - it is not important. It was not intended as self-promo, vanity, publicity, etc. but to provide information for interested parties. But I agree that an autobio such as this might not be appropriate for wikipedia. Eduardo.miranda 15:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please publications make this person notable this is fine Yuckfoo 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove from Articles for deletion as the article has been cleaned up somewhat. Obviously, there's more work to do. For example, the information at EETimes needs to be placed in the article. This guy is really accomplished (had some of the above posters actually took the time to look into his background rather than remain ignorant) and well deserves to be in Wikipedia. He was motivated to develop the article but was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's requirements, which was no reason to insult him from ignorance. This article should be removed from Articles for deletion and someone should contact Dr. Miranda and inform him of the same. -- Jreferee 02:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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.