Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudio Marques (rapper)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Marques (rapper)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

likely paid for article about a non notable rapper sourced entirely to fake black hat SEO sources and those appear to be the only sources writing about this person, so fails NMUSIC, etc... Praxidicae (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - paid-for spam. MER-C 13:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is clearly a spam piece and goes into ridiculous detail (fracturing one's leg?) that, even if the subject were notable (which does not seem to be the case), would be irrelevant. Subject is not notable; but even if the subject were notable, it would be best to delete this article and start over. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has a few stories in publications that appear to be valid online newspapers, with titles like "California Herald" and "America Daily Post", but those are either unreliable in terms of journalism or are fronts for promotional announcements. It appears that the rapper is the subject of a vast publicity campaign that includes this Wikipedia article, which is evident if the writer thinks that future fans will find his broken leg compelling. I can find nothing else beyond the usual self-promotional and social media sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually CH and ADP are completely unreliable. They're quite literally fake sources run by blackhat SEO firms to give the impression that certain people have actual media coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2020 (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.