Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leandro de Moura Ribeiro


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Leandro de Moura Ribeiro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I appear to have made a mistake in accepting this from draft 6 months ago. There's actually insufficient evidence of notability -- almost all of the positions listed are just student offices. Apparent self promotion, previously deleted from the pt WP.  DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Mistakes happen, even if they aren't always so frankly owned to; this one seems quite easy to remedy. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a platform for (self-)promotion (WP:NOTPROMO). Bakazaka (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, does not meet WP:GNG. Catrìona (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I saw this draft back in the spring, and rejected it the first time it was put in the AFC queue because at that time it was written in Portuguese rather than English, but I didn't keep it on my radar after the creator translated it. There's nothing here that's "inherently" notable per WP:NPOL, but he doesn't get over WP:GNG either — the article is not based on reliable source coverage about him, but on a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people or things. And since this was its creator's only contribution to Wikipedia, it indeed looks like a self-promotional violation of our conflict of interest rules. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2019 (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.