Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comitê Nacional de Arte Brasileira

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. There's not much discussion and quite a bit of uncertainty, but nobody explicitly opposes deletion. Sandstein 12:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comitê Nacional de Arte Brasileira

[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)

None of the mentioned sources are reliable or demonstrate notability. GNG is not met. Skyshiftertalk 13:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator Wilbr2003 has added false information regarding the organization to multiple articles [1] [2] [3]. They also created articles for some of its supposed members which are also in AfD. Skyshiftertalk 14:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator should explain why the references are unreliable. Several seem to be mainstream news media. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are mainstream, and that's clear when you look at the sources. They are blogs or databases. Skyshiftertalk 20:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per Skyshifter. No independent and reliable sources, just circular quotes. Svartner (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some sources and info to the article. Some info has been removed by the AfD nominator with the summary "this is false information" with no explanation of why it's false. Please have the courtesy to explain, not just make assertions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See here.

I should've explained the entire organization and associated articles are fishy. There isn't a single mention of the organization before 2024. Its website is full of AI articles and the first post is from 2024. There is no indication that the organization existed before 2024 and all sources that mention it are unreliable blogs. Skyshiftertalk 13:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one weird example [4]. "Portal S4" was created on June 21, 2009 [5] and there's a news article supposedly from May 9, 2009, talking about the organization [6]. I don't know what's happening off-wiki regarding the organization but it is at very least strange. Skyshiftertalk 15:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:58, 11 February 2025 (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.