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.
Consists of unreliable sources. Someone speaking Portuguese should assess the reliability of the Rimasebatidas source, as that is the only source that can possible be reliable.. »
Shadowowl |
talk16:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Subject clears
WP:GNG, as he has got "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As of now, all of the sources present in the article are reliable, so no issues on that front. The book, the magazine article and the french review make for significant coverage that is independent of the subject, as well as the news article from Diário Notícias Madeira. This source
[2] does have a very significant intro on the artists preceding the interview. Sources as this
[3] or the documentary (both on big public TV channels) do show his relevance on the field of Portuguese hip-hop. The article still requires clean up and some expanding using the provided sources but alas, AFD is not clean up. A
WP:BEFORE would have been appreciated, though.
RetiredDuke (
talk)
23:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. I don't know how an editor who does not speak Portuguese think they can possibly vet sources here. A source has been added, subject is a veteran on the Portuguese hip-hop scene and meets GNG, it is merely a matter of translating the Portuguese article. This nomination is one of the now retired
User:Shadowowl's
239 nominations within a few weeks. Filed within a few minutes of their last edit, I don't think
due diligence or any policy-required
ATD-considerations were given proper attention. SamSailor08:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Consists of unreliable sources. Someone speaking Portuguese should assess the reliability of the Rimasebatidas source, as that is the only source that can possible be reliable.. »
Shadowowl |
talk16:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Subject clears
WP:GNG, as he has got "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As of now, all of the sources present in the article are reliable, so no issues on that front. The book, the magazine article and the french review make for significant coverage that is independent of the subject, as well as the news article from Diário Notícias Madeira. This source
[2] does have a very significant intro on the artists preceding the interview. Sources as this
[3] or the documentary (both on big public TV channels) do show his relevance on the field of Portuguese hip-hop. The article still requires clean up and some expanding using the provided sources but alas, AFD is not clean up. A
WP:BEFORE would have been appreciated, though.
RetiredDuke (
talk)
23:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. I don't know how an editor who does not speak Portuguese think they can possibly vet sources here. A source has been added, subject is a veteran on the Portuguese hip-hop scene and meets GNG, it is merely a matter of translating the Portuguese article. This nomination is one of the now retired
User:Shadowowl's
239 nominations within a few weeks. Filed within a few minutes of their last edit, I don't think
due diligence or any policy-required
ATD-considerations were given proper attention. SamSailor08:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)reply
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.