Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diogo Mainardi

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. So Why 09:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diogo Mainardi[edit]

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

Successful writer, but doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. as been tagged for notability for 9 years. I could see nothing compelling in the Portuguese article either. Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Boleyn: did you check Portuguese news sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi, yes, as best I could. Did you find convincing sources? Boleyn (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an article built around works by the subject. We need sources about the subject. I might be persuaded if someone could demonstrate that there are such works in Portuguese, but just saying that they might exist without in any way indicating what they are, or in fact indicating that they even exist, just suggesting that they might exist, is not enough to avoid deletion. Wikipedia is built around the principal of verifiability, which means that sources must be identified to keep an article. An encyclopedia can only work on the principal of building on sources we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per John's argument. My WP:BEFORE did not reveal sufficient coverage in secondary sources -- in English or Portuguese.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2017 (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.