Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sailson Jose das Gracas

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sailson Jose das Gracas

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

I still confirm my PROD here in that he is largely and only best knwon for this one case that not only simply got the largest coverage at that time, there's nothing to suggest any applicable notability aside from those events itself. I specifically examined and noted everything with my PROD and it still applies. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Claims to be a serial killer responsible for 42 deaths (which may well be true). Reported worldwide. Sounds pretty notable to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't that there has not been any apparent available information after the case, and it's all solely about the events themselves. SwisterTwister talk 14:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable nor ever will be. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any ongoing coverage or ~~references after 2014~~. Just a brief 15 minutes of fame. Not notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; no indications of on-going coverage or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yup, I can just imagine an article on a serial killer who murdered 42 people being deleted if he'd been operating in Britain or the United States. WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm not sure these crimes have been proven; pls see for example: Self-proclaimed serial killer arrested in Brazil, with language such as "purported", "claimed", ""We are now trying to trying to determine if he is the serial killer he says his or if he is making it all up." etc. Has there been any follow up? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been fully proven, but the implication from the reporting is that the police believe he's responsible for at least some of them. Even if he hasn't killed 42, he's probably still a serial killer and my previous comment stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could find Portuguese language sources that are ongoing, I think it would be enough to establish notability. The English language coverage doesn't, but I get the systemic bias argument. I'm not sure where the best place to look for the additional sources would be, but if they could be found, I'd definitely be open to striking my delete !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google news returns results in multiple language, and there's not been continuing coverage either in English or Portuguese. So WP:NOTNEWS applies, as this was a one-time spike of media interest due to suspect's (unproven) claims. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searched through the Google News again and found this as the latest Portuguese language piece [1] The very rough Google translate version of it doesn't seem to suggest anything other than the fact that the trial is going to a jury, but I thought I would share here since it was published a year after the latest coverage we'd previously identified (I've also struck my comment about 2014 being the latest above). Regardless, I'm still in favor of deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand to read the article that I can say it never actuslly says anything but that exact "going to a jury", and the fact that was a year ago, there's still nothing substantial because of that, especially because the available coverage is outweighing that by only being largest when the event actuslly happened itself. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I agree. I was just noting I found a later source than I mentioned above in case anyone else could find anymore. I'm still in favour of deletion unless additional ongoing coverage can be found. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. per good sources. most users here that !votes delete gives no reasons for it besides IDONTLIKEIT. which is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - I never commented the words or anything like that at all, any such presumptions are not relevant, and the Delete votes themselves acknowledge my stated concerns. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BLP1E case, the usual blaze of routine coverage that come from grisly events like this, and then nothing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 6 October 2016 (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.