Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulo Feofiloff

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. Coredesat 05:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paulo_Feofiloff

Paulo_Feofiloff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

In my opinion, the person to which this article is related does not warrant a Wikipedia page. This is not meant as an offense, of course: the immense majority of people in the world does not warrant a Wikipedia article! Indeed, having such an article in Wikipedia can inclusively become a nuisance for a common (living) person, specially when it is totally irrelevant as this one is. Moreover, the object of the article himself does not consider the article to be necessary, as can be seen by the comment left by him in the Talk Page. For this reason, I think this article should be deleted. NaaktGeboren (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC) — NaaktGeboren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Weak keep, seems to have multiple contributions to his field per his official page. The fact that this AfD is the nom's only contribution seems a little fishy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The article doesn't make a claim to notability, and his web page isn't working. As for inspiring in both form and content: that's a claim to be Spam. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete no real claim of notability, article fairly peacock-heavy, and subject has requested deletion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pete.Hurd. The professor's webpage is now working, and does list a number of papers that he's authored, but at best his notability is questionable. When a person of questionable notability requests deletion, I favor honoring the request. Xymmax (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per subject's request. Unless it's a slam dunk case of extreme notability we should delete in these instances without further comment on the subject. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I must dispute the policy Myke supports: What the subject actually said is that he's not notable. He's probably right; but that is one (well-informed) editor's opinion. And allowing people to delete articles on them on demand is a form of censorship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as probably notable. I think the policy that we pay attention to the subjects wishes in cases like this is an error. It is incompatible with the core policy of NPOV, and therefore invalid regardless of the unfortunate fact that it had consensus. time we realised that. DGG (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2007 (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.