Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batuque (documentary)


 * 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. In the discussion below, there is a rough consensus that the article's subject has enough coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guideline. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Batuque (documentary)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Borderline copyvio. Notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have wroten the IMDd entry. I am the copyright holder of this text and the original one can be found here: http://www.marfilmes.com/en/africadocs/batuque.htm. I have already sent wikipedia an email donating the copyrights of the text. Renee Mar Mar Filmes 13:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - It would helpful if the copyright status of this article could be verified by someone at the WMF. That's not the main issue, however. I cannot find any reliable sources on the documentary to establish notability, so my opinion is on those grounds. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix. To politely disagree with User:ItsZippy, we do have sources toward this film. Understanding though, that sources for Portugese language documentary films shot in Africa are more difficult to find than for something filmed in the US, we might consider WP:CSB and give this one some time. Revisit in a month or two if it has not been improved.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix per Michael. Its selection to the IDFA -- the world's leading documentary film festival -- alone would be enough to meet WP:NOTFILM (imo). No need to revisit, also imo. It's a notable documentary film, whatever the weaknesses of the current stub. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It would have been better if you actually linked to websites instead of a google search, which we already know how to do. What I did find in those google searches was a lot of blog entries and a couple of dead 404 pages.  Personally, references in foreign languages don't bother me, as Chrome offers to translate on the fly making it very easy to verify.  The problem is I don't see reference-able material in reliable sources. As for the IDFA they didn't have much to say about it, just a synopsis. I would be happy to actually look at any RS articles on the documentary if someone can point to a couple.  The COI issues are disturbing, but don't disqualify the article.  A lack of significant coverage by reliable sources does, however.  Dennis Brown (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Michael was being helpful in linking to a list of links, at least one which is a reliable source. I've added it to the page: an article from A Semana. I agree with you that with Google Translate, non-English press really isn't a problem. And if the article is found to be non-notable, we should add the key details of the film to Batuque (music), per WP:PRESERVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't questioning the contribution's faith, just its utility, as a link is already provided in the AFD. He and I tend to be on the same side of discussions at least half the time, and agree with his stand on systematic bias.  I was just complaining about a link to a search results.  It's a pet peeve, as I find them seldom useful, particularly in this type of case, where the majority (if not all) of the results are not reliable sources.  It's a link to a fishing expedition, not evidence of notability, and  (imho) below the standards I would normally expect from him.   Dennis Brown (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did not intend to annoy, as mine was but a response to the editor preceding me who stated he could not find any reliable sources. I do not know where he looked, but it seems that some editors do not look beyond the assigned Find sources, and my own searches use parameters that differ from that assigned by the AFD template, often sucessfully. In addressing the sometimes weakness of a Find sources created by the AFd template, we also can search under the film's actual title: Batuque, l'âme d'un peuple.  The newer parameter below does give us additional sources, that I have not yet searched through nor translated.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Original title:
 * reply - Thats fine Schmidt and adding that link is great but the point I was trying to make is that when you say "we do have sources toward this film", (emphasis added) I would expect any editor (particularly an admin) to provide links to the actual articles that pass WP:RS and demonstrate notability. Your claim wasn't that they are likely, it was that they exist.   I'm open minded, but if I'm wrong in my nomination (it happens), what persuades me isn't a 'to do list' in the form of another search (which kind of looks like I didn't do what I needed to WP:BEFORE nominating it).  Perhaps a link to the article that you read that clearly told you that this is notable.  Not trying to nitpick, Michael, but you close AFDs yourself, you know a strong argument from a weak one.  I'm trying to be persuaded (as nom), really I am, but claims require proof, in the form of actual sigcov/v/rs/sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Brown... actual sources were found through the modified parameter I offered and used in the article by another, thus proving the utility of my proffered search and my initial comment intended to counter another editor's saying he could not find sources. My comment was based upon consideration of WP:CSB and the difficulty inherent in finding online sources for this brand new article. Not to dwell too much on it, but this article was nominated for deletion only 23 minutes after it was created, and just 17 minutes after its author's last edit.  We do not expect gold right out of the staring gate and I feel that we need not rush this off of Wikipedia quite yet.  Our being patient with its newcomer author might prove quite beneficial... as the project is itself an imperfect work in progress and encourages many options for weak startup articles other than outright deletion. And please... as your words are easy to read and comprehend, there's no need to rehash or embolden for emphasis.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The bolding was because it appears I failed to clearly explain my problem with the claim with out actual sources, which still haven't shown up. I newpage patrol from both the back and front of the list, so sometimes things will hit AFD sooner rather than later. I almost CSD tagged it for copyvio (I was searching for references, after all), but did give it the chance for a broader audience to judge the merits.   Take it how you want, but the article talk page speaks for itself, and the article creator admitted it was a direct copy from IMDB.  From my perspective, I've given a copyvio a second chance at life by bringing it here instead of CSD. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What the talk page "speaks" is the author asserting that he is the editor who contributed the text to IMDb, and in being the copyright holder, he is the one able to contribute that work here. The page also speaks that he has written Wikipedia to clarify the donation of that work here as well... but I am not a member of OTRS, and have no personal knowledge of his communication. If others feel that a New Page Patroller allowing 17 minutes for improvement was enough time for such, then so be it... and if it survives, we can always revist the article in a few months. And what was offered by User:Shawn in Montreal are "actual sources" which have been added to the article (Nice job, Shawn)... so far giving us two three not-too-fantastic reliable sources for the article... one two from Portugese source A Semana and the other from French source La République des Pyrénées. I have added this AFD to other language delsorts in the hope to gain more input from editors better able to find and offer offline sources and to find a broader consensus.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added one more rather more minor news ref. Have to admit, given the international festival run of this film, it's surprising to me how little news coverage I can find, and I've now searched in English, French and Portuguese. Fire the (or hire a) publicist! Anyway, I've done what I can, now it belongs to the ages. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that online coverage seems to exist and appears sparse, but I am hoping that someone able to find and offer hardcopy sources does so. We do well to not always rely only upon what finds its way to the web, and encourage through our actions and deeds that other avenues of research be undertaken.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is verifiable and interesting information about the Cape Verdan culture. I don't see any benefits for this project in deleting of this article. The article contains independent coverage in multiple languages and it is in my opinion sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as foreign-language sources establish notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2012 (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.