Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surra de Bunda


 * 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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Surra de Bunda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

unencyclopedic topic, absolutely irrelevant subject, not pertinent to Wikipedia at all RedUser (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Overhaul. This group has its own page on pr Wikipedia.  Someone who knows the language should try to translate that to this wiki, and then merge this content into that article. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me  19:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: I wrote this article almost eight years ago because the subject was notable.  I am not against updating articles, though, that is always our goal.  Unfortunately, the nomination doesn't make any policy based reason for deletion, they just don't like it.  Perhaps they are a surra de bunda victim.  What will they come for next, café con piernas?  I don't like twerking but I don't claim it doesn't merit coverage.  Checking to see view stats, I am refreshed to see occasional huge smacks of views (almost 18,000 views on 7 January 2018).--Milowent • hasspoken  20:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage. Article's substantive claims border on patent nonsense; the idea that this standard stripper act was invented in Brazil in the recent past is fundamentally silly and effectively unsourced. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are consistently devoid of fun, Hullaballoo. Your rationale only advocates for improvement, a deep dive into the cracks of this issue.  I love the idea that this is a "standard stripper act," clearly you may be but among our most knowledgeable editors on the topic, you are in arrears in not sharing this information.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notability usually requires coverage, so for this article to stay we'll need some coverage.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment All articles are from a relatively short period in time and are all passing coverage of a fad. There are a number of articles, but so many articles when you search are from June 1-14, 2010. I'm not sure the depth of coverage is there, but it did get picked up on by a number of independent sources doing "what-the-heck" articles, at least in English-language press. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:05, 3 March 2018 (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.