Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABATEJ


 * 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 of the debate was Delete(early) karmafist 21:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

ABATEJ
Advertisement, vanity, not encyclopedic at all. – ugen64 01:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC) WHO IN THE HELL ARE YOU GUYS? CENSORSHIP IS HATEFUL...
 * Delete per nom. ESkog | Talk 02:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. JoaoRicardo 05:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Deserves speedy delete. --Mecanismo 11:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN Ad J\/\/estbrook      16:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE! &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Ricardo Moraes-Pinto (talk &bull; contribs) 15:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC) who is the author of the article.
 * Weak Delete as it does assert some notability "an association founded by four great Brazilian jazz musicians" although I have no idea if they are verifiably regarded as great.  I'd change to a "weak keep" if it was verifiable and cleaned up to a higher standard. CarbonCopy 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

dear UTC: is greatness the only way to be recognized?... how to verify "greatness"? is this the poin?... what if "great" was just applied as a generic qualifier for these four people?... fine! let's take "great" off... let's leave it there so that people may offer their comments on the subject! as a matter of fact, this is one of the points in having a wiki entry - to facilitate discussion on entries so that it may become a well established truth (or not) ...

on another level, what amazes me is that a fellow national (João Ricardo), who should know about ABATEJ by this time just comes in from out of the blue sentencing ABATEJ to the discredit of havis its entry DELETED! this man should be one of the many who is daily editing the entry on our president Lula da Silva, just for the fun of it... (rmp)

unsigned comment above 16:52, 9 December 2005 Ricardo Moraes-Pinto CarbonCopy 17:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you mean me, CarbonCopy, not "dear UTC" - UTC is the timezone for Wikipedia times! While "greatness" is inherently subjective, one CAN provide evidence that someone is regarded as "great".  Awards, reviews, published articles about an artist, academic works, even sales figures (although those are probably better evidence of popularity than greatness).  Brazilian sources or international sources are fine by me - just some kind of third-party evidence. CarbonCopy 20:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: The group is merely a voluntary association that invites contributions. Advertising and an effort to communicate.  Geogre 17:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom. Silly with POV. Ifnord 18:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Edit Conflict Delete per nomination. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  18:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity, non-notable and badly written. Technostalgia
 * do not delete: this looks like a banishing court, is this a symbol of our times? that's shameful! (rmp)
 * Wikipedia isn't an advertising billboard, it's a free encyclopedia. This non-notable trash, the article creator should try Google Adwords to get traffic, not abuse a free information system. (Bjorn Tipling 20:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC))


 * Speedy Delete Spam. (Bjorn Tipling 20:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Delete, per all the above. The correct way to respond to an AfD on your article is by, first, checking that you know what Wikipedia is (it is not a place "to facilitate discussion on entries so that [they] may become a well established truth"), and second, if you still believe the article should be kept, by ensuring it meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, e.g. by citing sources that show that the organisation in question is notable. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 21:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, to Haeleth: pls read rsv e-mail (rmp)
 * Comment, 'pls' is actually spelled 'please.' Also, you might find it helpful to sign by typing (~), not (rmp). (Bjorn Tipling 21:37, 9 December 2005 (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.