Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario gravem borges

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, A7. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 18:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mario gravem borges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Deleted once as WP:CSD#A7 but immediately re-created by the same user, who has no other contributions. I can't see evidence of notability, and the article looks like spam (and a probable copyvio) but that may just be that it's poorly written. Note: Geogre's First Law. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Block recreation. Non encyclopedic, nn person, no evidence of notability. --MaNeMeBasat 14:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I'd say that the solo show(s) are at least a claim to notability. Also if the reviews include full page by American prize-winning author and critic Sol Biderman, in BRAZIL HERALD and LATIN AMERICAN DAILY POST and full paragraph by critic (late) Flavio de Aquino in Bloch Editores’s FATOS E FOTOS weekly magazine; can be found they would go a pretty long way to meeting WP:BIO. On the other hand, we don't actually have cites to the sources, just claims that they exist, and the general tone is so unencyclopedic as to be almost useless for the creation of a new article. So, on balance, delete. Eluchil404 07:57, 14 February 2007 (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.