Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caio Sael

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. ✗plicit 09:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caio Sael

[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)

This is an obvious case of WP:SOAPBOX. This article has no WP:RS on the article and no indication of WP:N whatsoever. Also, the creator seems to be an interwiki spammer who created several articles for this person in several WPs, mostly in small Wikis with few watching active members. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 06:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 06:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 06:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 06:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the article's current sourcing, none of which are RS.--- Possibly (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added trusted sources, fixed bugs, stable article has no vandalism, article must remain on English Wikipedia. --- Moniiquedecastro (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Moniiquedecastro, Could you please clarify your rationale. None of the sources you added are "reliable" and being a "stable" article is not a reason to keep it. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 03:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not reliable. If he was actually a notable singer and actor, it is very unlikely that no mainstream media would mention him. All sources are either small websites or wiki-like websites. Delete per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. Bolhones (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources used are not reliable and the content is not notable enough to be kept.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after removing many of the bad sources (wikis etc), there's still a fog of promotion obscuring any chance of determining notability. --- Possibly ☎ 07:50, 24 June 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.