Miguel Mies: His personal website lists multiple media appearances , but they are all either interviews or articles by his university, so no independent secondary sources here.  The best sources could be this one which repeatedly quotes Mies on his research and even has a paragraph quoting a researcher critical of Mies' work, and this one which discusses his team's research in detail and briefly quotes him.  However, neither seems to rise to the level of a full secondary source significantly covering him.  The only other things found in a quick WP:BEFORE are, comparatively, not very interesting: a mention as contributor in a book in Google Books, more databases [1] [2] [3] [4] , a team presentation and his research articles on Google Scholar.  Nothing close to establishing notability.  Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 22:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Science , Biology ,  and Brazil .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A recent (2019) PhD whose citation counts [5] have not yet built to the level needed for WP:PROF#C1 , with no evidence of any other kind of notability.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Lokotim ( talk ) 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:NPROF #7a which says Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area .  He is widely cited in Brazilian media as an academic expert in a niche area: [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] .  Weitkemp ( talk ) 14:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't matter when he did his PhD.  He meets 7a.  More refs: [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] .  Weitkemp ( talk ) 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a lot of coverage if someone searches in local archives: [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] Weitkemp ( talk ) 14:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, that's a good point.  I forgot that specific subcriterion, but it should work for the SNG.  Guess it's keep time then.  Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 14:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  It's helpful to share sources that can help establish notability but it is unrealistic to list 34 as if participants have the time to check each one.  User:Weitkemp can you narrow that down to 3 or 4 that best illustrate your argument to Keep this article?  And while it doesn't really matter when an article subject received their PhD, it is more likely that an academic would have receive sufficient coverage when they have progressed further in their career.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Nowhere near a pass of WP:Prof .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 01:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep per above arguments.  Meets WP:PROF as it stands - I think deletionists should get a consensus to deprecate Point #7 of WP:NPROF.  Otherwise, academics like Mies are notable if they are widely cited in the mainstream media as an expert.  Academics from Brazil are just as notable as those from the U.S. Also, RE to Liz, WP:GNG is not mandatory for academics.  89.23.224.133 ( talk ) 22:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Unclear where this discussion stands now that the nominator is arguing to Keep this article but hasn't withdrawn their nomination.  With some editors advocating Delete, it wouldn't lead to a Speedy Keep here but it might make a difference in how editors are viewing the nom's argument.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Weitkemp .  consensus can change , but as of the recent past , rule 7 has existed as a loophole of the PROF test.  While I used to be an inclusionist, I am now more of a deletionist .  Bearian ( talk ) 17:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets NPROF criteria #7.  Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 10:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets WP:SIGCOV .  Sources outside of the US are just as good as sources inside the US.  Contributor892z ( talk ) 18:41, 30 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep