Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O Minuto Mágico


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

O Minuto Mágico

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article fails WP:GNG. Little Google links pop up from a search. Derild 49  21  ☼  20:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources were arranged and listed in Article--Sylvio Sant (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that this work was published in 2009, but one of the claimed sources was published in 2001. Could you explain that anomaly? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the first edition. The publisher's site demonstrates that it is a second edition. See here Moreover, the work exists and is cataloged by the National Library of Brazil, the Brazilian government agency more than reliable. Just check this source here- Enter title O Minuto Mágico or registration number in Registro: 425791.--Sylvio Sant (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the rules of Wikipedia WP: GNG. Reliable "means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources published May encompass works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability - this source here ensures the article. Reinforcement that the article should be kept.--Sylvio Sant (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete GNews has never heard of this GBooks seems to only have false hits. Edward321 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Shouldn't Miguel M. Abrahão and related articles be nominated as well? Like the article currently nominated, they were all written by User:Sylvio Sant, and all seem to lack verifiable, reliable sources.--Hongkongresident (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You should feel free to nomminate them if you don't find them notable. Remember that it is not a lack of sources in the article that would be a problem, but the lack of sources out in the world. See WP:BEFORE, Bigger digger (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I was refering to the latter and not the former, as a simple search would indicate. The article Miguel M. Abrahão, the writer of O Minuto Mágico, suffers from the exact same problems as the nominated one, and has been created and mainly edited by the same user, so there's a suspected violation of WP:COI.--Hongkongresident (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts whether this source here is valid under the criteria of WP, but in any case, I leave it registered here
 * Delete. The lack of translated sources forgoes verifiability at this time. If translation can be provided per WP:NONENG, it may be possible to assess with a greater understanding of the content and notability. Until then, I am unable to recommend keeping the article. Cindamuse (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - with no practical knowledge of Portugese I have tried to find sources that cover the subject in detail, but with no success. I like to fight WP:Systemic bias but even the sources provided by Sylvio Sant merely prove the play's existence, not its notability. The French Wikipedia deleted the article at the end of September for the same lack of sources, with the closer wondering if this was a cross-wiki spam effort. Bigger digger (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The most notable sources for the article itself is provided by the National Library of Brazil, in Encyclopedia of Brazilian literature by COUTINHO, Afrânio; SOUSA, J. Galante (found on Google Books))or Encyclopedia of Latin America . I believe that online newspapers are not reliable sources. They are denied every day. The sources are more confáveis those provided by books. I think it's time for the project be reviewed with respect to online sources. Please let us seek to better assess the criteria, especially when it comes to a synopsis of the play. The text can be known in one country but not another--Sylvio Sant (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide us with page numbers in those books where O Minuto Mágico is discussed? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Phil, I liked its seriousness in dealing with this article. Congratulations for your questions before giving your vote.In this case, I chose not to cite this source in the article because I have the paper book and I noticed that the pages on Google Books can not be viewed.Would be worth mentioning in the article, these pages? If it be, in the printed edition I have, the page bears the number 612.--Sylvio Sant (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Using the Google Books search tool, it can be confirmed that the second source does not in fact mention O Minuto Mágico. Nor does it mention anything about the author. Now, in some cases this is due to a policy by Google Books, in which some pages are exluded due to copyright concerns, but the Encyclopedia of Latin America is not one of those books. As for the first source, a Google Books search does indicate that the author of the work, Miguel M. Abrahão, is mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Brazilian literature, but not O Minuto Mágico specifically. Either way, that's only one source, one with WP:NONENG concerns as well, which is not enough to satisfy notability criteria, as it requires (as per WP:NBOOK) that an author's work must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works". So far, this still looks like a delete.--Hongkongresident (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Question that begs!Why does the author of the proposal for disposal did not rule anymore?--Sylvio Sant (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He's not required to. It's up to us Wikipedians to debate and provide sources for the stances we take, and an admin to gauge the consensus at the end and decide whether or not to delete the article. The nominator is encouraged to discuss along with the rest of us, but he doesn't have to. And who knows? He might be busy, or unavailable at this time.--Hongkongresident (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2010 (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.