Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Rodrigues Braganza


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sofia Rodrigues Braganza

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The level of coverage in third party is not adequate to establish notability. The sources provided in the article are obituaries, short blurbs, and the like. The subject is not notable enough for an article, in my opinion. Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Note this is one of the articles listed at Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  01:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  01:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete None of the sources rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:DIDEROT Jim-Siduri (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete All of the sources are deeply suspicious. Like other material in the sockpuppet investigation, the New York Travel Writers Society Annual Report was uploaded to Google Books by self-publishing through CreateSpace. The tributes and its listing as a private stock on Bloomberg are all generated from unchecked data submitted online. In short, the article's subject and her company are social media hoaxes. Choess (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under WP:CSD for having been created by a member of this sock farm. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per above & Mainly WikiDan61 - All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  13:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: I fail to see the relevance here ... I am also very alarmed as to the given references, their nature, how they got online, questionable ISBN, sockfarm-involvement. LagondaDK (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Sockfarm qualifies for G5.   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  14:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.--Susumu (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: another product of Australian Threston's sock-farm, intel on Braganza originate from online-profiles like facebook and WordPress and the likes, her company "Braganza Publishing" - said to have been in business for 30 years - is nowhere to be found, only hints in public space, mentioning in "T.R. Threston" related articles that themselves were published in public space. The one web-site that was presented as the company's site ain't convincing at all, does not appear to be professional, established in public space on free to use server and with no list of publication or names of authors whatsoever. A really poor presentation for what is said to be a 100 employees company. Nowadays thats considerably large for a publishing company. After 30 years of publishing one should at least expect some of their books having ended up with either a bookseller or a library. Apart from that: Braganza Publishing would not qualify for an article under the Wikipedia rules, and Sofia Braganza won't either. Most open space sites you find will be self-referential, being linked to T.R. Threston -> John P. Fitzpatrick -> Sofia Braganza -> Braganza Publishing -> World Guide Publishing (T.R. Threston) and back! LagondaDK (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2014 (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.