Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Manuel da Silva Santos


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Carlos Manuel da Silva Santos

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

BLP of a businessman who is also a university lecturer. Definitely not a pass for WP:PROF, and overall lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. The current article is based on affiliated sources and routine corporate announcements, and I found nothing else better, just promotional pieces. Apparently not notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Portugal. Mccapra (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Mccapra, Thank you for your feedback. We would really appreciate your advice on how to keep the page live and not have it deleted. We have a full list of all the links of articles about Carlos Santos available on the internet. Would it help if we shared these with you/Wikipedia? We have never done this before so we do apologise if this is not the correct route.
 * Kind regards,
 * EAM EAMINVPF22 (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is ‘we’? Mccapra (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Colleague of Carlos Santos. EAMINVPF22 (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please share the three strongest sources you have from reliable independent sources (not links to organisations the subject is associated with, not interviews with him, and not his own pr republished as churnalism. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * https://nykdaily.com/2022/06/the-vision-and-culture-of-carlos-santos-ethos-asset-management/
 * https://britaindaily.co.uk/2022/06/23/carlos-santos-president-of-ethos-asset-management-inc-entrepreneur-spotlight/
 * https://www.laprogressive.com/sponsored/ethos-asset-management EAMINVPF22 (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that's two spam sites and a piece of sponsored content, so it supports my case for deletion very well thank you. Mccapra (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming the spam sites. Is there a way I can verify sites when they write articles about Carlos Santos? 2A00:23C4:6889:3D01:9909:6064:F3AF:B07C (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming the spam sites. Is there a way I can verify sites when they write articles about Carlos Santos? EAMINVPF22 (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * May I send you other sources from reliable independent sources? Just trying to follow the correct rules and understand the process to avoid the page being deleted. Thank you. EAMINVPF22 (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an independent source from yesterday, Ethos Asset Management is listed under the Key Players list:
 * https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/project-investment-and-asset-management-services-market-trend-2022-size-share-global-technological-innovation-future-scope-and-demand-forecast-by-2028 EAMINVPF22 (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, subject ban the editor, and create protect for want of reliable sources. PRWire, business newsletters, sponsored content, and the like are not reliable, nor independent. Even high school students know that. Nothing exists in the Times database. Non-tenured professors almost always fail our standards for professors. An offer to try to find better sources, after posting this mess of spam, is not tenable in 2002, because everybody knows we are not a free web host service. The arguments to keep are neither reasonable nor serious. I can not stress strongly enough that playing innocent that we do not have standards, or that a conflict of interest as a volunteer for a charity, or that they are somehow unknown after 21 years, is a reason alone to delete. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.