Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bapudi

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 of the debate was delete if nothing else, this AfD shows that the article is self-promotional (in that no one but people involved in the organization think we should keep the article), see WP:NOT. Verifiability issues... calling up professors and so on doesn't really cut it in terms of verifiability, which is non-negotiable. Anyway, there seems to be a consensus to delete, even counting people who've only editted this article. W.marsh 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bapudi

No assertion of notability (was tagged for speedy but instead was prod'ed), 500ish googlehits just for the word Bapudi. Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A grant from The California Council for the Humanities [1] for a Bapudi project should count as some notability. The various attempts to delete this article is intimidating for a first-time article writer. Any perceived lack of sophistication should be viewed as inexperience not as insouciance. I would appreciate a clear, jargon-free explanation of why this article is not consistent with Wikipedia rules and what steps should be taken to conform to them.-Godelfin

I understand, and you should by no means take the processes personally. I encourage you to read Wikipedia's Notability guidelines in making an article. As it stands, the article does not explain how its subject is notable, which is an important criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: For my part, I recommend this article for deletion for lack of verification and sources. It's not the lack of sophisication. If there were concrete, reputable, sources, that could be confirmed by a third party of the beginning text, instead of solely on your word, I would have no problem with the article staying and being given the appropriate care and attention to expand it. It's the unverified, uncited by a third party, initial block of text that I have the significant problem with. Additionally, the press release cited in the article, does not indicate Bapudi as the recipients of the grant. -JJJJust 18:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

At the page for "Rise and Fall of Irvine Meadows West," [2] the production company is listed as Bapudi Films, as well as information regarding the grant. -GoDelfin

• Delete The original content at the article this morning, now speedied, convinces me that the creator intends this as a joke. Xoloz 18:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is not intended as a joke. The content has been continually refined to meet the specifications. Previous content should not be considered.--Godelfin 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The current content does nothing to dissuade me from my view formed this morning. For one thing, Bapudi -- as defined -- is almost an A7 now. "Secular organization... for good times"? What does that even mean? Certainly sounds like a joke, and is indistinguishable from, say, the Friar's Club or the Freemasons. Xoloz 18:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be advised of corrections made to avoid criticisms that entry is frivolous.--Godelfin 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There is information on the article's talk page that is somewhat more specific about the nature of the topic. Based on that, I find it difficult to categorically dismiss the article as a joke. -Fsotrain09 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay -- it is now slightly less frivilous. It still lacks verification from reliable sources, however. Xoloz 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It fails to assert a sensible reason for notability, and I can't see one anywhere else on the web. When I looked twenty minutes ago, it was a non-secular organisation (i.e. a religious organisation?), now it is an artistic movement. Independent film and self-released music are its most notable products. - well anyone with a video camera and a keyboard can do that. Jll 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Apparently this article has been deleted before. I have thus tagged it with the recreation of deleted material speedy tag. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment CSD-G4 does not apply when the article is substantially different to the one originally deleted. The article deleted earlier bears no relation to this one. Please do not nominate for G4 speedy deletion unless you have reason to believe the content is the same or similar. Thanks. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment.This article is not a recreation of deleted material. No record exists of the deleted article so there is no proof to support this assertion. All calls for deletion of this article must direct criticism solely towards the content of the article. I believe this is only fair. Also, questioning the notability of artistic output is subjective and the above comment that "anyone... can do that" is not only false but constitutes an unfair attack. Again, one can look to the press release for Bapudi Films' "Rise and Fall of Irvine Meadow West" for a verifiable and reliable source. Another source is the OC Register, a major newspaper in Southern California, which discussed a screening held at the University of California. See http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/atoz/article_1173712.php

While that is a reputable source, no mention is made of Bapudi Films. -Fsotrain09 20:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The article links to trailerparkfilm.com, which lists credit to Bapudi Films. -Godelfin 20:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, questioning the notability of artistic output is subjective and the above comment that "anyone... can do that" is not only false but constitutes an unfair attack. Nothing unfair or subjective about that. Anyone can make a film or some music. What makes it notable is if other people recognise it as such. For example, by giving the artist a major award, or by buying a million copies. As for the article in the paper, well local papers are full of inconsequential local stories. Jll 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from expressing unverifiable opinions such as "local papers are full of inconsequential local stories." They are inconsequential to the discussion of this article.-Godelfin

• Comment. Jll, wow, that has to be one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. Art can't be notable unless it gets an award or sells millions of copies? The Mona Lisa didn't win a single award, I guess thats crap. Sex pistols barely sold anything in their heyday, I assume they posed no notable mark in musical history. Did you know Kurosawa never won an Oscar? I guess he was just another hack with a camera, right? Anyone can make a film or some music? Have you ever tried? Ever filmed something for more than 30 minutes with a crew? Ever composed an entire album?. I'd like to see you come up with a handful of movies, much less multiple albums. Its not easy, and for you to belittle ANY artistic work is moronic and small minded. local papers are full of inconsequential local stories. Uhm, excuse me, WHAT? First of all the OC Register has a circulation of over 350,000, so its not just some local paper. Second, what you might find inconsequential may be life changing for others (did you even bother to read the news article?). You already made up your mind about this article, and that within itself should disbar you from paritipating in this process. -Japhar8181
  • Please don't call me moronic and small-minded - it is against Wikipedia policy to make personal attacks. I cited two examples (that's why I wrote for example) of things that indicate that Wikipedia should have an article on the artist concerned - I could have provided a much longer list - e.g. a piece of work known to many people (Mona Lisa), having heavily influenced many other figures in their professions and built up a large following (Sex Pistols and Akira Kurosawa). But I don't see any evidence that these apply to Bapudi either. If you have such evidence then present it. If it is credible then I will certainly reverse my opinion. Should the criteria for a Wikipedia article be that someone has simply managed to make a film or an album? There must be tens or hundreds of thousands of people who have done this. The Orange County Register is a local paper serving Orange County. The story appears to be inconsequential because there don't seem to be any follow up stories, and the national or international press didn't pick it up either. Jll 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Orange County Register OC_Register won its first Pulitzer Prize in 1985. --Godelfin

Yes, but a large part of its content is local stories. This story is a local story. No-one outside of the area published it. Jll 08:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC miserably, no claims of notability in the article (A7? Probably just short of it), not even certain if it's a religious movement or artistic collective. It should go. Tevildo 22:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that many artistic movements, for instance Der_Blaue_Reiter have been concerned with the underlying spiritual truths in art. See also Joseph_Campbell. See also Dada for an example of an art movement characterized as anti-art. --Godelfin

True - when your movement becomes notable, we will welcome an article about it. Until then, it shouldn't be here. Incidentally, please could you sign your posts with four tildes, thus: ~~~~ This is especially important in AfD. Tevildo 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I will concede you this point. Please see changes made to article to make it less contentious.Godelfin 23:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is notability, not "contentiousness". In order to make your article acceptable, you will have to provide evidence that your movement is notable; that it has some influence in the wider cultural world. One reference from a local newspaper, unfortunately, isn't enough. And can I ask you again to sign your posts properly? Thank you. Tevildo 23:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(The auto-link in my last signature did not appear because I changed my preferences to 'raw signature.') On the topic at hand: No longer is bapudi identified as an artistic movement and never was it identified as a religious movement. I have continuallly clarified this article so that it will considered acceptable. Bapudi is the name used to identify creative works not limited to a particular media, it is inherently inter-disciplinary. Also, the OC Register is listed as #32 in the Top 100 Daily Newspapers in the United States.^[[3]] When will it stopped being identified as a "local" newspaper when it, in fact, reaches a large metropolitan audience?--Godelfin 00:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

To help clarify, must every single article in Wikipedia be notable? Japhar8181 00:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The notability guidelines are a way for an average Wikipedian to determine if an article's subject is or isn't appropriate to have an article about. The notability guidelines for biographies, companies, etc. are to prevent every interested party, no matter how tiny, from deciding to create an article about themselves. Without notability guidelines in place, the encyclopedia would be overflowing with articles about garage bands, things that people made up in school one day, etc. The verifiability guidelines also go a long way in helping in this respect. It's important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should thus be held to strong encyclopedic standards. It's not paper, either, but that just means that the signal-to-noise ratio can climb to unsurpassed levels, as is evidenced by the new pages watch. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Of course, WP isn't perfect -- we delete non-notable stuff as we find it. The fact that other non-notable stuff might be hiding somewhere is no reason to keep this non-notable thing. Xoloz 01:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Well I'm the one who put the speedy tag on it in the first place. So I guess you know what my vote is. BJK 14:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I retagged it for speedy, which was in turn declined, being that the author had transformed it from an art movement into an organization, I think. Either way, consensus seems to be unanimous in this AFD. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Unanimous means complete agreement by everyone. Have you read this thread? It's not unanimous. Japhar8181 15:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The only person that I see has basically voted keep is the article's creator, who has alternately called the subject an art movement, a production studio, an organization, and "the Way of the Bapudi". --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The Way of the Bapudi??? Are you trying to offend us? You do realize that personal attacks is against Wikipedia policy, right? You have been needlessly agressive towards us and now with your petty insults, I have to say, I'd like an administrator to audit this situation because I feel that you are becoming abusive. Japhar8181 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm fully aware of Wikipedia's personal attack policy, and I have made none. In mentioning the above facts I am merely calling into a stark light the inconsistent acts and opinions of the article's author- particularly that on the talk page of the article. If you are offended by my tone, I'm sorry; but in the light of this evidence I cannot find any way to, in good conscience, keep the article detailing this subject in the encyclopedia. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we have an admin look at this? Would that help? -Fsotrain09 15:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the AFD process is running itself just fine. The administrator who declined speedying it once again may or may not have been right to do so, but I'm not at all opposed to letting the AFD run to completion. Those in favor of keeping have done nothing to provide evidence of the subject's notability or provide verifiable sources thereof, so an administrator looking at the issue would do better spending their time elsewhere. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But you just admitted that you ARE opposed to letting the AFD run to completion. You (and most of the other editors) have made your mind on the matter and no change to the content is going to make a difference, right? Most of you cling on to what was originally written and can't let go, so whats the point of letting things "run to completion"? Anything we modify or add won't be taken account. Japhar8181 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not so. The article as it stands does not meet a number of inclusion criteria. If you have contrary evidence to this, by all means, post it. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Just for reference, the above inconsistencies in the article and accompanying talk page include such quotes as:

The way of the bapudi is still very unknown and not much has been properly documented. It wasn't until 1987 that the original codex that contained the famed bapudian canon was discovered. Due to lack of funding, it has not been fully authenticated or translated. Please give us more time as we continue to discover new information about this organization.

• Being that the article apparently refers to an electronic music foundation, a certain artist (according to the link in the article), or perhaps a movement, or perhaps a major organization notable for not having been given a grant by the state of California, I'm kind of leaning toward dismissing the entire article as a joke, as some editors did above. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I implore you to explicitly define the inconsistencies in the article. The text clearly identifies Bapudi as the name used to identify creative works not limited to a particular media, it is inherently inter-disciplinary.Godelfin 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The inconsistency lies in your inability to explain what Bapudi is. It's a name used to identify "creative works not limited to a particular media". It's all well and good that you call art "bapudi", but remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, one which has demands of verifiability (I note that you have removed all third-party verifiable sources from the page) and notability. Wikipedia documents notable phenomena, it is not here to help promote non-notable or made-up phenomena, such as a movement/artist/organization that was created from an ancient text which has not been translated. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the article to include the 3rd party source to the OC Register article that was listed above on this page but not directly linked within the article text. I have made every attempt to assert that Bapudi is indeed a real phenomenon. Godelfin 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I can speak to the issue of the grant from the California Council for the Humanities (NOT the State of California, as someone erroneously stated -- has anyone actually followed and read the link??). I produced the film in question, and wrote the grant proposal. The receiver for the grant was Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, as Bapudi is not a non-profit organization (501c.3) and thus cannot receive grant funds. However, the film was produced under the aegis of Bapudi. I would be happy to provide a copy of the film, as well as copies of any relevant grant paperwork to prove that this is the case. The California Council for the Humanities is a major organization, and I believe their support of a film that bears the Bapudi name should be sufficient to establish notability. The film has also been mentioned in the Orange County Register, rated 32 in a list of the top 100 daily newspapers. I cannot speak on the history of this wikipedia entry, as I have not been following it closely, but as the entry stands now, it is accurate and correct. As I peruse the article history, I come to believe that some of the vitriol directed toward this entry is due to the flippant tone in which the original article was written. Please consider *only* the facts and the article as it stands in making your decision whether or not to delete.Styliztic 05:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  User's first edit. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment.The fact Bapudi is not explicitly mentioned on the California Council for the Humanities (CCH) webpage is an error of omission. The CCH entry for the film simply makes no mention of the production organization behind the film. However, the webpage www.trailerparkfilm.com clearly establishes that the film is produced under Bapudi's aegis (see the links near the bottom of the page). I can use the grant paperwork to prove that the film was in fact awarded a grant. Thus, although the word "Bapudi" is not mentioned on the California Council for the Humanities webpage, the link between the two organizations is factual and verifiable. Some effort should be made on the part of Wikipedia admins to verify this information with me before considering deletion.Styliztic 06:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. That Bapudi has been funded or credited by the CCH is not necessarily the issue at question here. The issue is that there has been no evidence presented that Bapudi has notability sufficient to guarantee it a place in the encyclopedia, which neither your, nor the other above keep votes bothers to address. One instance of an example that might mark an organization as notable (according to our guidelines is being the subject of multiple nontrivial organizations, or being part of mainstream cultural thought, or having a major effect on the intellectual world in which it resides, none of which any evidence has been presented that Bapudi has done. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  I am sorry sir but you are incorrect when you state that notability is to be used as guidelines. The link you provided clearly states that: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. -Japhar8181 21:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment.I believe the fact that we have been funded by the CCH does make us notable. The notability guidelines make it clear that notability is not the same as fame, but is more related to importance. I believe that being credited and funded by a major humanities granting organization (CCH is part of the NEA) qualifies us as important and therefore notable. The notability guidelines also state that notability is not a rigid wikipedia criterion, but a guideline, and that the concept is "somewhat contentious." Therefore, I must contend that Bapudi is notable because of its association with other notable organizations. I'll write more on this later, I don't have time at the moment. Just let me make it clear that I AM addressing the issue of notability -- our position as an artist with an NEA grant makes us notable.Styliztic 19:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment.I missed Japhar's last comment. I was wrong, notability is not a wikipedia guideline. Thank you for the correction, Japhar. This strengthens Bapudi's case for legitimacy within Wikipedia, unless we are to be deleted on the basis of an essay. We are a legitimate entity which has been recognized by an affiliate of the NEA. We exist for positive aesthetic and social reasons. What does our entry in the Wikipedia harm? Is there some danger that people looking up Bapudius, and accidentally finding Bapudi? Is the four kilobytes of data that our entry comprises going to fill Wikipedia's servers? This notability complaint sounds like an easy excuse for erasing an aesthetic which certain people find distasteful.Styliztic 05:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  I have no opinion on the aesthetic of bapudi, but the voters who have expressed a desire to keep the article have provided no verifiable evidence that it, as an aesthetic, exists. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  For reference, the standards of verifiability are available at WP:V. Which, by the way, is not a guideline, but a policy. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  And one last thing- if notability was not a strong marker for incusion of an article, why is it in so many of the criteria for speedy deletion? -Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Bapudi has been shown to be plenty notable. To anyone who has checked out some of the reference links, Bapudi is obviously not a farce. I find more value in Wikipedia's Arguments Against Deleting Articles For Non-Notability (found in the Notability guidelines) than I do in the Arguments For Deletion. Topics concerning the deletion of valid content, the lack of subjective criteria, and the benefits of even obscure content are especially important. I understand the urge to prevent pollution. This Bapudi page is not pollution; it's clearly not an article some kid wrote about his dog. The internet is evolving the process of information exchange. I vote to support it, instead of being afraid of it. I vote to KEEP this article. Netwait 23:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User's first and only edit. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 03:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Kuzaar's last post says, "....the voters who have expressed a desire to keep the article have provided no verifiable evidence that it, as an aesthetic, exists." Kuzaar, please explain to me how Bapudi could receive a grant from an affiliate of the NEA if it doesn't exist? I can submit clear and convincing evidence to prove that a) Bapudi has produced a film called "The Rise and Fall of Irvine Meadows West" and that b) the California Council for the Humanities awarded that film a $5000 grant. Additionally I can prove that Art Center College of Design, one of the most prestigious design schools in the world (www.artcenter.edu) granted the film an additional $5000. Ask me, and I will submit our grant paperwork for review. So I ask again: Kuzaar, by what logic can you claim Bapudi's nonexistence? If you can submit a reasoned argument by which you show that a non-existent organization can receive a grant from the CCH, I will withdraw from this argument immediately and accept the deletion of this entry with humility. Otherwise, I do not believe you are participating in the consensus-building process in good faith. You are not participating in an exchange of ideas; you are merely stating the same nonsensical argument over and over: that Bapudi does not exist. A reasonable argument for deletion would be that our association with the CCH is not enough to establish our notability; the argument that Bapudi does not exist is unreasonable, as there is clear and convincing evidence that it does. Even if you were to argue that a CCH grant is insufficient to establish notability, deletion is hardly a lead pipe cinch. Bapudi's entry meets the three Wikipedia standards for inclusion: it is verifiable (the physical existence of the film and its grants), it is not independent research (or in fact research at all), and the entry is written with a neutral point of view. I would like to point out to all administrators that, on the basis of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, there is NOT a consensus about the removal of this article. The article's critics have failed to show that the article violates Wikipedia's rules, and have not directly addressed our claim that recognition from an NEA affiliate is sufficient to establish notability.Styliztic 02:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  I have yet to see a verifiable source that names Bapudi the recipient of any grant. On looking at each and every one of the links provided in the article, Bapudi is only mentioned in two, and that is as a musical artist. You have persistently failed to provide any evidence for Bapudi's existence (except possibly as a music artist?), much less notability within its field. Further, the sock/meatpuppet flood that has persistently plagued this AFD as evidenced by each of the users that have voted keep (I point out that you yourself have less than 10 edits, all to this AFD) is outstandingly suspicious. I remind you that Articles for Deletion are not a vote, but a discussion in which Wikipedia editors attempt to decide what should be done about a marginal article. Lastly, I want to bring up one more point. You have insisted multiple times that the film, a recipient of a grant, is associated with Bapudi. I have yet to see any evidence of that, either. If you can link me to some third-party, verifiable information regarding my concerns, and if the flood of newly-registered users cools down a bit, I would feel less strongly about the deletion of this article. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 03:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: First off, I welcome user Netwait. Howdy to ya. I hope you become a contributive editor of Wikipedia. Secondly, what happened to the "famed bapudian canon" that this article was originally created off of as a source? Incidentially, what is the name of that local community college that's being worked with? Who's the contact there? You know, when I first voted, I thought this article was a farce, a joke worthy of speedy deletion. But, I saw efforts being made to change it. It's not even the same article, really. It's changed meanings and interpretations several times. And now... I still think that something is fishy. First edits being made here, of all places? It's odd. I've been trying to avoid thinking sockpuppet all this time, trying to assume good faith, but, this just doesn't sit right with me. I'd like to take this opportunity to cite UrbanDictionary.com. "Bapudi is the crystallized consciousness of Hegelian Mind, embodied through the creative excretions of an underground collective with operatives all over the United States. Privately funded, Bapudi represents one of the last schools of independent thought and action not yet assimilated into True Being. Inchoate and ever-flowing, Bapudi will knock your boots off. Bapudi.com is the official homepage to Bapudi activities, gatherings, and happenings this side of the Peiking Delta." The Wikipedia page links to Bapudi.com. While this is not authoritative, conclusive, or really reputable, it in my mind contributes to the many flaws that make this faceitious house of cards topple. My original vote stands and that's my final answer. Thank you. JJJJust 03:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well said, JJJust. The author and other editors surrounding this article have only tried to muddy the waters and cloud policy that clearly has a mandate to get rid of unsourced, unverifiable, non-notable articles like this. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 03:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Kuzaar, I'd be happy to send a DVD of the film and of our grant paperwork. Neither one is online. To what address shall I mail it?Styliztic 08:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The name of the community college is Saddleback Community College. You can contact Charlie Myers, the film professor, at 949-582-4209 or cmyers7@saddleback.cc.ca.us. We also produced "The Rise and Fall of Irvine Meadows West" with the Art Center College of Design. You can contact my professor Gabor Kalman (a renowned documentary filmmaker -- see http://architettura.supereva.com/image/festival/2000/en/works/2000160.htm) at 213-200-8179 or gkalman@cinema.usc.edu. Incidentally, we won three separate awards at the Saddleback College Film Festivals in 2003, 2004 and 2005. You are welcome to ask Charlie Myers about that. I don't see how my inexperience as a wikipedia editor or a weird quote on the urban dictionary (of which I was unaware) invalidates our argument. I also don't see how reasoned arguments based on the wikipedia rules and guidelines -- which we have been carefully studying -- constitutes "muddying the waters". I hope the Wikipedia admins are more willing to parse this based on the facts than the editing community.Styliztic 08:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Check the talk page of the AFD, please, this page is more than 30kb long. For the record, my issues with the article are the author's inability to explain the nature of the subject, the unverified/unverifiable claims, the blatant lack of third party sources detailing the subject, and the pitiful number of google hits for Bapudi. Also for the record; Your inexperience as a Wikipedia editor is not at issue. At issue is the fact that several newly created accounts have come here, of all places, to express their opinions, leading me to suspect sockpuppetry. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Again, I think we need to involve an admin. Kuzaar has taken this personally and he his shown his bias multiple times. He has deliberatly misinterpreted wikipedia by saying that notability is a guideline, when in fact it is neither a guideline or a policy (he has yet to apoglogize for his error). He has used personal offences against us (please see the The Way of Bapudi incident). And now he claims that Bapudi is pitiful? (Kuzaar, can I say that you are pitiful, using your own metric?). As for the claim of sockpuppetry, again I am insulted. I personally know both GoDelfin and Styliztic, however I'll admit I do not know NetWait. Next time look at our ips and you'll see that we are all in quite different locations. For these offenses I would like to formally request that an admin review this thread as you seem to have taken matters personally. Your insults were bad enough and to be expected, but your mirepresentation of wikipedia policies should have been the final straw. --Japhar8181 15:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: I have not taken matters personally. I referred to the number of google hits, not the subject, as pitiful. As to sockpuppets, that you personally know them is worrying, as asking other people to rally to a cause is a variety of sockpuppetry called "Meatpuppetry", or using others to proxy your vote. I am fully in favor of an admin having a look at this AFD, as I am entirely confident of how I have represented policy and pointing out the article's present violation of the rules as outlined at Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  And one last thing, regarding Sockpuppets. The reason I am led to suspect unscrupulous activity is this: Looking at the editors who are arguing to keep on this AFD, I notice that all of them have exclusively edited the article, the article's talk page, or in most cases, this AFD. For many, editing the AFD to talk about how Bapudi's article should be kept is their first action, which is something I nearly always regard as suspicious. That disinterested third party editors somehow gain knowledge of Wikipedia's regulations and processes, and come to talk about it in this AFD, of all places, is not only suspect but an almost irreparable blow to my attempts to assume good faith in this AFD. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  So which puppet are we? A meat puppet or a sock puppet? If you're going to be contentious then make your suspicions official and investigate the matter. Otherwise your attacks are just slanderous. And you have yet to correct yourself when you posted multiple links entitled guidelines that pointed to the notability essay, when in fact, the very essay clearly states it is NOT to be used as a guideline, much less policy. And despite your numerous attacks using it as a guidline you've changed your argument. If anything here is suspicious, its your motivations. --Japhar8181 16:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. You are making an ad hominem attack, Kuzaar. Why should our editing status matter more than the evidence we present and the arguments we make? You have repeatedly ignored my questions. You have not looked at the sources I offer. This process is deperate need of an audit. You write, "That disinterested third party editors somehow gain knowledge of Wikipedia's regulations and processes, and come to talk about it in this AFD, of all places, is not only suspect but an almost irreparable blow to my attempts to assume good faith in this AFD." Wikipedia's regulations and process are posted freely for all to see and participate in. We have merely done our research, and I believe your attempt to paint this as insidious or dishonest is a violation of the good faith under which these proceedings are intended to occur.Styliztic 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  Also, Kuzaar has yet to address any of my arguments. I have offered concrete evidence (a 40 minute film and grant paperwork) of verifiability, and he seems to have no interest in even looking at it. How can you continue to claim that we have no third party sources when you refuse to look? The CCH webpage clearly lists "The Rise and Fall of Irvine Meadows West" as a grant recipient (http://www.calhum.org/programs/story_rise_fall.htm) and lists my name as the project director. The film's website (www.trailerparkfilm.com) has clear reference to Bapudi Films (see the bottom of the page). At least look at the sources we present! If you refuse to even consider the sources or our arguments, how can you claim to be participating in the AfD process in good faith? For the record, your issues with the article are unsubstantiated. The article clearly explains the nature of the subject: "Bapudi is an identity given to creative works that have included filmmaking and electronic music." It also makes no unverifiable claims, and it has several clear third-party sources. Read it!Styliztic 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  JJJust, did you check out my contacts at Saddleback College and Art Center? You asked for the information, at least be courteous enough to investigate it.Styliztic 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  Are the sources you have cited readily available to a third-party interested editor? Is there any way via public record that an editor can verify your claims? I'm looking for a link or something I can immediately see that correlates what you claim to reality. Bapudi is not credited with anything verifiable on that website, only a link saying "Powered by Bapudi.com". The hardcopy of the film is not public record, and does not meep WP:V. Further, about your accusations of an ad-hom attack: I have not made an ad hominem attack, but rather pointed out to the closing admin that he/she might discount the opinions of those editors, being that they may be accounts registered just to stuff the ballot at this AFD, as the evidence provided by their contributions will show. Please, if you wish to discuss this further, please address the questions, point by point, that I have put on the talk page of this AFD, at the tab at the top. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:One more thing -- no one is using anyone else to proxy a vote. The fact that a number of people support Bapudi's inclusion in Wikipedia is not a trick or a sham. Is it unusual that we know each other? Would you be suspicious if six different researchers in a narrow scientific field knew each other? Of course not. Again, I believe the focus should be on the facts and the arguments we present (which you have ignored).Styliztic 16:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  I have not ignored your arguments. I have stated several times now, as in my above note, that the sources you have provided do not directly deal with or explain the article's subject, and in many cases do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability. And even if you are six people who know eachother, a number of those people appear to have registered accounts just for the purposes of upsetting the process, and that is a fact that should not be overlooked. Again, if you would like to address the questions I have raised, one at a time, on the talk page of this AFD, I would reconsider my position. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Response: Kuzaar, I will answer your questions one by one. 1) "What are you referring to when you say Bapudi" Bapudi is an organization that produces music and films. It states this in the entry. 2) "What verifiable evidence that you have that Bapudi exists?" Our film has been awarded a grant by the CCH. Here is the web URL: http://www.calhum.org/programs/story_rise_fall.htm. The CCH website does not mention Bapudi Films, but I have emailed them to ammend our entry. It does mention my name (Robert McLendon), and I am the director and manager of Bapudi Films. If you wish, we can put a big banner of the film's website that says "Produced by Bapudi Films". Would that clear things up for you? 3) The Search Engine Test page says: "Q. What is the minimum number of matches you should see if a term is not made up? (3? 27? 81?) A. Perhaps a few hundred, but this depends on several things:" We have more than a few hundred. Also, the page makes it clear that the search engine test is subjective, and that entries with as few as 15 hits have been accepted, and that, "some claim that this undermines the validity of the Google test in its entirety. The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive." 4) I can't speak to the nonsense that had been on the page. I didn't post the original entry, nor ask for it to be posted. I only came into this when I learned that the entry made mention of my film and my production company. As far as being credited on a film, I CAN SEND YOU A COPY OF THE FILM. It is a 40 minute documentary, with hundreds of cuts. I can show your our Adobe Premiere files. You let me know what you would consider evidence that my film isn't "woven from whole cloth" and I'll be happy to submit it.Styliztic 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  Now that I have specifically responded to your questions, will you take this discussion a bit more seriously, and stop accusing me of bad faith? This process has become bizaare and Kafkaesque.Styliztic 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Attention: Please see the continuing thread on the discussion page.Styliztic 17:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  I apologize if the AFD process is any more protracted than it has to be. Ordinarily it is closed after five days, but there is currently a backlog. Here is my response, as copied from the talk section, to the above users: In light of the new clarity that your answers have brought to the situation, your organization does not pass inclusion guidelines as set out in WP:MUSIC (regarding the musical aspect of Bapudi, or the WP:ORG proposed guideline. The reason I've asked the above questions is to divine precisely where the article's subject would fit in, and in view of the newly revealed information, it doesn't appear appropriate in this light, either. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:04, 26 June 2006 (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.