Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woody Carvalho


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Woody Carvalho

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Extremely badly written and non-encyclopedically formatted résumé-style WP:BLP of a musician who has a potentially valid claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC, but no actual reliable sources to support it — and as always, a person does not pass NMUSIC just by claiming they pass NMUSIC; they pass NMUSIC by virtue of the quality of sourcing that can be provided to verify the claim. This requires such a fundamental WP:NUKEANDPAVE rewrite that I initially prodded it as promotional/advertising — a decision I'm still completely comfortable with — but it was then recreated a second time in exactly the same bad and unsourced format and still isn't entitled to be kept in this form. I'm happy to withdraw this if the article can be rewritten and sourced properly, but in this form it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable. I searched but could not find sources. The award could be not true. How come even Pt:WP not discover this artist? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The award is true and the source confirms it. And he was part of at least two notable musical acts: Soraya Moraes (with whom he earned the award) and Oficina G3. I'm not saying I support the article being kept in its current state, but it wouldn't take more than some minutes to save it. Victão Lopes  Fala! 01:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What we require is reliable source coverage of the topic — for example, while I don't have any substantive reason to doubt that it's true, we don't have an actual source for his birthdate, for the fact that he's from Brazil or for his membership in Oficina G3. While it's certainly possible that there are enough sources to clean it up with, a WP:BLP is not allowed to stick around in this state while we wait for that to happen months or years from now; a BLP has to have one or more reliable sources in it immediately. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to sandboxing this instead of deleting it outright, if it hasn't had one or more good sources added to it by close, but BLPs require proper reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, I'm just saying his notability is guaranteed. I'm not asking anyone to wait, articles can be easily recreated in a better shape later anyway. Had I come across this article, I'd probably redirect it to Oficina G3 as per WP:MUSBIO - indeed, that page was a redirect before @Marcioflycarvalho recreated it. I'm tagging him here because he expressed interest in keeping the page but was not alerted of this discussion. Maybe he's got something to say. Victão Lopes  Fala! 00:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true. As I've often pointed out, an AFD discussion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article; it just means they don't get to keep this version. A subject that's previously been deleted by AFD can be recreated in the future if a good article citing good sources can be written (we've got plenty of topics where a bad early version got canned, but then the topic attained a stronger claim of notability and/or better sourceability, so somebody wrote a better article that now qualified to be kept.) It's also worth noting, however, that Oficina G3 mentions, but does not actually source, the past membership of a "Marcio Woody Carvalho" — which means that Marcioflycarvalho is the subject himself, and this is therefore also a conflict of interest. (Not that that's a deletion reason in and of itself, but it does help tip the balance if the article's already problematic for other reasons.) Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you believe if I told you I hadn't noticed the editor's name is the same as the subject? Anyway, he has the right to comment, even though I agree he is not the best editor to work on this. Victão Lopes  Fala! 18:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am sure Victão Lopes will save this article in a quarter of an hour or so, possibly with multiple independent reliable sources in the Portuguese language. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and what makes you be so sure that I'm going to do it? Victão Lopes  Fala! 00:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe not you, but somebody has to. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 22:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO.--Rpclod (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2014 (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.