Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viola toeira


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Viola toeira

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Only source 2 looks reliable; the others don't seem to have any authority. Search for further sourcing came up empty. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep see sources from google books and Portuguese wikipedia Comte0 (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Comte0, although the main source for Portuguese Wikipedia seems to be a blog about the instrument. Sharktapus (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources don't look that bad to me (except No 3 which is hard copy and inaccessible to me...). There is possible confusion in the use of the word 'viola' which in English refers solely to a member of the violin family (apart from some nice little flowers). In Portuguese it also applies to this plucked instrument - otherwise a guitarra portuguesa. I've added the link to the Portuguese article, which is well-referenced for a non-English language Wikipedia... Peridon (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously, given the sources cited in the article, linked above and found by clicking on the word "books" in the nomination. This is yet another example of the nominator putting an obviously incorrect WP:PROD tag on an article and then, as soon as deletion is contested, robotically nominating for deletion at WP:AFD rather than considering whether his first evidence-free guess about notability might have been wrong. Why do we tolerate such disruptive editors? Shouldn't we be encouraging such people to find another hobby rather than constantly get in the way of the people who are trying to build an encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2011 (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.