Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erlan Bastos

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. Daniel (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erlan Bastos

[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)

Brazilian journalist, local in scope, with no proven relevance. Already had article deleted in native version. Half of the fonts listed are of poor quality. J ^talk 15:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A suspicious IP added more information about the biographee. It is possible to note, again, that half of the sources mention third parties without proving their notoriety (besides the low quality of the publications). Some of the portals mentioned are linked to the biographee. J ^talk 23:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems a case of WP:PROMO to me. The article's tone, the nature of the sources, and the creator behavior all suggest that. The person in question has a lot of mentions on media, but it lacks in-depth coverage. Furthermore, most of the sources (if not all) are of bad quality, not reliable and some are even obscure. I can find only a WP:RS that could justify an article here, but it's not enough. Perhaps, it's too soon for him to have an article here. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2021 (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.