Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaio Philipe

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaio Philipe

[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)

No indication of Notability according to the references which lacks WP:SIGCOV. fails WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Brazil. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable UPE, not seeing any SIGCOV from independent sources.-KH-1 (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a business personality in Brazil and Latin America 75.104.94.113 (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/2021/06/01/arc-xp-power-digital-publishing-forthcoming-business-news-brand-bloomberg-lnea/ 75.104.94.113 (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WaPo piece was published via the PR arm, so it doesn't count as independent coverage.-KH-1 (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is a business personality with several references 75.104.94.113 (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)striking sock per SPI CUPIDICAE💕 13:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Further references added for notability. The person is notable as he has some credible references Sarah Freedmen (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage BBC, Washington post, Bloomberg, from reliable sources 75.104.94.113 (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)striking sock per SPI CUPIDICAE💕 13:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please provide links to the sources so we can judge why they are or are not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The obvious socks above (really, do better, guys!) don't sway me and the lack of RS covering him indicate he is no more than a guy with a job who can get PR style write ups. This is nothing more than vanity spam. CUPIDICAE💕 18:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable found. He's featured on a web page for TV5 Monde discussing an NFT he created, but it's only in passing he's mentioned. Most are mentions of his name in an article, nothing featuring him alone. Vanity spam. Oaktree b (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it, independent sources and notable. User above mentioned TV5 Monde, this reference is not on the source. 24.234.111.66 (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)striking sock per SPI CUPIDICAE💕 13:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the references are there, unsure why the disputes if they are credible sources it seems tied up with the person role. Maria sharpov je (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)striking sock per SPI CUPIDICAE💕 13:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TV5 Monde as described [1], entirely not notable as source. The same info can be found in a WGN radio article, [2]. Only mentioned in passing, the reliable sources as listed are token mentions, ehnce the non-notability. Not sure how "tying up the person role" helps to explain why this is notable. Zero mentions in the NYT, Jstor or GScholar, 3 "hits" in Gbooks but nothing mentioned about him. Nothing notable found. The BBC Brazil article is him being interviewed for the Olympics, nothing about him as a person. We need better sources about the subject, not just mentioning him. Other sources seem about as useless as that one. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, The Washigton Post and Bloomberg are credible sources for business, which seems to be the person background. 24.234.111.66 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the WaPo is a PR blog, so non-notable. The forbes article is about an awards ceremony that mentions him in passing. Did you read that article? It has little to nothing to do with the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like the editors above are somehow connected. I tried to analyse some sources and for sure per nom the article does not meet WP:GNG Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 05:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've dissected all the sources, none left that are notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2022 (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.