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. v/r - T P 01:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pabulo Henrique Rampelotto

[edit]

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)).

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fringe scientist. Does not meet WP:PROF nor any other notability guidelines. Most references given are articles written by Rampelotto himself in the fringe Journal of Cosmology and other non-reliable sources / self-publications. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible impact on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- ? "GS" ? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scholar, as in link above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

ahh, Google Scholar ... thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — the Journal of Cosmology cannot be characterized as a "fringe journal" considering it is indexed by the NASA Astrophysical Data System and Proquest (according to http://journalofcosmology.com/About.html and, therefore, not independently verified), and inclusion in both the Library of Congress and the University of Chicago Library (per http://www.worldcat.org/title/journal-of-cosmology-astronomy-astrobiology-earth-sciences-life/oclc/651009010&referer=brief_results ) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Cosmology certainly is a fringe journal by every definition of what "fringe" is. Big Bang denialism is rampant, just as you can find anti-Evolution rants, anti-Global Warming rants, attack pages for whomever disagrees with its authors, editors publishing in the same journal, no rigourous peer-review process if any, etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant whether the journal is fringe or not. The fact is that the subject has minimal cites in that or any other journal. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It's half-relevant. You can be notable despite publications in fringe journals. But if the guy had 50 papers in Physical Review, it'd be impressive and definitely evidence of notability, while 50 papers (or however it was) in Journal of Cosmology is hardly impressive and certainly not evidence of notability. It more or less means that if you want to established notability, you need something better than his work in J Cosmology, and should exclude those of h-index calculations, etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the discussions at Talk:Journal of Cosmology, I am under the impression that you are not necessarily mainstream in your opinion of the Journal of Cosmology. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the mainstream suddenly started embracing Big Bang denialism, and anti-Darwinism, or that Physical Review starts publishing things like this or accuse their critics of being terrorists, I think I'm in the clear when it comes to that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was only referring to the participants at the talk page I referenced, "mainstream" relating to the majority of participants in that discussion page, not the world at large. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article revised — Citations updated and enriched to afford better evaluation. Reformatted quoted passages. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost zero citability in GoogleScholar and WebOfScience, nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF. Plus appears to be a WP:FRINGE case. Nsk92 (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion raised here by Headbomb is clearly moved by his personal feelings about the Journal of Cosmology and related authors. In fact, the discussion just turn around if the journal is scientific or not. The same discussion was raised by Headbomb in the Journal Page. As expected, Headbomb` personal and vulgar comments have been denied by wiki community, and now, the page remains as an encyclopedic paper must be. But even today, this guy insists with his ignorant attacks (See Journal of Cosmology Page Discussion). I just hope this kind of personal feelings do not happen again here and in others pages. The Page, which is on by a long time, has been improved and updated by different authors in the last days fitting as an encyclopedic paper must be: with clear, formal, and coherent information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.vonNeumann (talk • contribs) 21:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — H.vonNeumann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The only reliable source currently listed in the article is the Hannoversche Allgemeine article, but it only quotes him and doesn't really say anything substantive about him. It certainly isn't enough to provide verification for the contents of the article nor to pass WP:GNG. The other 15 sources are all either due to the subject himself or unreliable blogs. And he seems very far from passing WP:PROF as well (not so much because of the fringiness of the journals he publishes in, but rather because his publications have very few citations). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Russellml (talk · contribs) removed my delete !vote. Possibly it was an edit conflict even though it happened some 12 minutes later. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Indeed, the page is online and continuously visited by a long time, and never questioned before, even in the own Article Discussion Page. I saw the attack of Headbomb to Journal of Cosmology (Discussion Page), and is the same one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russellml (talk • contribs) — Russellml (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. The page seems well written and present different contributions (Users). The text presents a neutral descriptions about the main points related to the reffered scientist. The issues, are hot topics today in Space Science, like the human exploration of Mars, and a new concept for Europa and Titan. An his contributions seem quite relevant in such discussions. The book of his authorship and other important scientist, began a world wide discussion about the possibility to Humans explore Mars in a One Way Mission, with considerable attention from the media. He was the first one to advocate for alternative mission concepts for Europa. Today, after the release of the Decadal Survey, Nasa abandoned the previous design and is working on a new mission concept for EJSM (quite similar as proposed by him). This also means he is far from been a fringe scientist. He is also author and co-author of diferent books, some of them availiable in Amazon. It seems reasonable to keep a page which has been online for a considerable time, and not questioned so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.18.33.234 (talk • contribs) — 200.18.33.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note to the closing admin, those were confirmed to be sockpuppets. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows 4 papers having a cumulative total of 1 citation - quite literally next to 0 impact. I think the "Journal of Cosmology issue" discussed above is somewhat relevant. For example, this journal is not indexed by WoS, the definitive source for physics-related archival journals, because it has not satisfied WoS' acceptance criteria (which include "impact"). It is not considered to be a mainstream physics journal. Conversely, there are mainstream journals that do cover similar topics, e.g. Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. and Astrobiol. and it's plausible that had more of his work been in these journals, the citation numbers would be more favorable. I don't think the issue here is WP:FRINGE. We have lots of bios on fringy people. Rather, there's simply a glaring lack of sources/coverage that demonstrate notability of this person. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
+1 I think that was put quite well. Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. He is only a "researcher" at a university, apparently not a professor or any similar title, and has a "background" in biology without specifying what (if any) degrees he has. Contributing a chapter to a book or two is not evidence of notability, nor is publishing articles that receive almost no citations from others. The article appears to be mostly a WP:coatrack for his opinions, rather than being about him or his career. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 29 September 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.