Deletion of Pabulo Henrique Rampelotto

Comment: 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 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=pabulo+henrique+rampelotto&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 almost no citations from others. The article appears to be mostly a  for his opinions, rather than being about him or his career
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:coatrack)

Comment: 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 . The other 15 sources are all either due to the subject himself or unreliable blogs. And he seems very far from passing  as well (not so much because of the fringiness of the journals he publishes in, but rather because his publications have very few citations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:PROF)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)