Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Donato Pereira


 * 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 Keep There is consensus here that the subject meets GNG independent of the Usain Bolt-related material. Vanamonde (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Douglas Donato Pereira

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Incorrectly declined as simply being a "drug lord" is never an actual claim of significance and there have not been any actual substantial improvements, several things apply here such as WP:BIO, WP:BIO1 and WP:CRIME; these are all essentially rumors and claims including about "a relationship with Usain Bolt" but none of it actually amounts to notability. SwisterTwister  talk  23:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – I declined the WP:A7 speedy deletion nomination (diff) because the claim of being a drug lord is a credible indication of significance. For example, a drug lord is (from the Wikipedia article) "a person who controls a sizable network of persons involved in the illegal drug trade". As such, the statement in the nomination of "incorrectly declined" is erroneous in my opinion. North America1000 05:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree this was not an "incorrect" decline of a speedy deletion: only the entry's creator is barred from removing a speedy tag, and A7 specifically allows for proceeding by PROD or Afd rather than speedy if the credibility is even unclear. So a speedy tag can be legitimately placed, in good faith, by one person and just as legitimately removed by another without anyone having done anything "incorrect"--they just disagree on the merits. Having just been through some confusion about grounds for declining speedy on a different entry, I think it'd be very useful to strike "incorrect" here, lest anyone be misled on what's already a fairly difficult-to-grasp point of procedure. would you consider that? Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – per references, per WP:GNG. The article was not incorrectly declined speedy deletion. The nominator should learn about guidelines before doing something like that again, we do not speedy delete notable article subjects.BabbaQ (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes [ GNG and Significant Coverage. All the mentions of Usain Bolt in the English language overflow the coverage of Pereira in portuguese.  BlackAmerican (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- all the coverage I see is related to his former girlfriend liaison with Usain Bolt. This makes this a WP:PSEUDO bio on an individual who's not individually notable. See for example:
 * 'Dina Terror' was linked to woman who spent the night with Usain Bolt (in Portuguese) or
 * Revealed: Brazilian girl, 20, who spent night with Usain Bolt is the widow of bloodthirsty drug lord called 'Diná Terror' who died in shootout with cops (Daily Mail).
 * The latter headline pretty much sums it up as WP:BIO1E. Most coverage appears to be from non RS tabloids. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I also only find articles about his former girlfriend and Usain Bolt, appearing two years after his death. If that tabloid story hadn't ever surfaced, the subject's name wouldn't even be in any WP:RS at all. Regardless, he's not the primary subject in any articles, and no books mention him either. There's just not enough coverage of him to pass WP:GNG. CrispyGlover (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Look at the article and sources he is the primary source in a number of articles. , , ,  and .  BlackAmerican (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the coverage in independent reliable sources. The people calling for deletion above seem to be ignoring sources that are not in English, against policy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- it's easy to look for coverage in foreign languages with Google translate. I located some coverage related to the subject covering his death in the shooting with police, following the torture and death of a 18 yo girl. This is still WP:BIO1E situation. Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS, and the coverage available is insufficient to build an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note -- With the closing editor's permission, I undid the close as I felt that the consensus to keep was not apparent, with three delete and three keep votes. Portuguese sources have been acknowledged; they provide limited information related to the subject's death, making it BIO1E. I suggest relisting for closer consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a WP:BIO1E and that too a very weak one at that where the subject is in limelight solely because of the Usain Bolt stuff. Nothing shows that the subject is notable. Keeping this article would be like creating articles for each of Tiger Woods' mistresses. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - the Usain Bolt material should probably be removed, as it is conjecture and poorly sourced at that. However, the subject is a national figure in Brazil, with multiple reliable sources discussing the topic/person.  Not known for a single crime, but multiple "events".  Meets WP:GNG.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 18:08, 13 September 2016 (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.