Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charges.com.br
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, neither of the arguments for deletion are appropriate. The first (nom) is a completely invalid reason, the second so vague as to not be useful. If someone can come up with a valid and even slightly detailed reason for deletion in the future, send this back up in a few weeks. --- Deville (Talk) 17:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Charges.com.br
Only popular in Brazil. Ragnarok Addict 22:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. That's not a valid reason for deleting the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB. Pan Dan 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep For heaven's sakes this is one of the most popular web sites of Brazil. Some of the charges made into television. I agree the article isn't very well done, but I feel offended for the nomination for deletion, and it makes me wonder if nomination for deletion should only be allowed for adimns. algumacoisaqq 22:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Being "popular" isn't a reason to be in an encyclopedia. If you can show me why this is notable per our guidelines (i.e. passes WP:WEB), then I will be happy to change my mind about whether this article should be kept. Pan Dan 23:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, personaly, I believe that being popular IS a good reason, but whatever, it's just my opinion. Acording to [1] tought, the site was choosen as "site of the year", as is visited by 120.000 people every day. Too bad it's in portuguese, as it is pretty much all material about it (not much I found, but not much I researched). What I can report you is that at every Sunday, at the sports program of TV Globo (by far the largest one in Brazil), there is one charge featured every week. The author also made some animations for the Big Brother (Brazil) show. The site was reviewed in Veja magazine, one of the biggest in the country. The author appeared in the television show of Jô Soares, a similar show in Brazil to David Letterman's or Jay Lenno's. Hell, in Brazil, the site is probably more visited then Wikipedia (and probably a LOT more then the Portuguese Wikipedia). But links and stuff? Sorry, I don't have. All the information in the article is easily accessible from the site - you just have to speak portuguese. Well, the informations on the article. The ones I posted here can't go for the article because I don't have links to prove it. They are true, tought. algumacoisaqq 00:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Also: I know the article lacks quality and such, and it's hard for people from outside to know about it's importance just from looking at it. But it could have being asked, I don't know. This isn't the first, or the second (well, it's the third) article for deletion that I see complaining about web based stuff, when it just shouldn't.
- Given that there are sources in Portuguese, perhaps this would be a good article to write in the Portuguese Wikipedia? To be in the English Wikipedia there have to be (I suppose) sources in English, or translated into English. Pan Dan 14:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- It allready exists in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Look, if you think the article lacks the quality to be on wikipedia, then just delete it, because it has been a long time ago since I wrote it and to be honest I have no interest in researching english fonts just to prove my point. I'm just saying that I know about the wikipedia rules - I used to be a regular contributor in Portuguese wikipedia - and there is no reason to delete this article at all. The thing is that I'm not interested to continue to maintain that particular article, so if you think it should be deleted for the lack of sources, fine by me (oh well, not really fine, I'll be pissed off, but whatever, at least I won't complain). The thing is that, as far as I know, all the info in the article is just to bloody obvious to be quoted from sources (yeah, I know, I need to read the "no original resource" rule again... but I just think that rule is flawed). Besides, I believe English wikipedia has the most resources about this subject in the English language. algumacoisaqq 17:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I just read again these rules (verificability, no original research). It looks like they are a lot more important now then they used to be. I didn't found any mention about language, tought. I still believe all info can be found inside the site (the site being a primary source, is it possible?), it's just that it is in Portuguese. Oh well, I'll see if anyone from pt.wikipedia is interested in fixing it. algumacoisaqq 18:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- It allready exists in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Look, if you think the article lacks the quality to be on wikipedia, then just delete it, because it has been a long time ago since I wrote it and to be honest I have no interest in researching english fonts just to prove my point. I'm just saying that I know about the wikipedia rules - I used to be a regular contributor in Portuguese wikipedia - and there is no reason to delete this article at all. The thing is that I'm not interested to continue to maintain that particular article, so if you think it should be deleted for the lack of sources, fine by me (oh well, not really fine, I'll be pissed off, but whatever, at least I won't complain). The thing is that, as far as I know, all the info in the article is just to bloody obvious to be quoted from sources (yeah, I know, I need to read the "no original resource" rule again... but I just think that rule is flawed). Besides, I believe English wikipedia has the most resources about this subject in the English language. algumacoisaqq 17:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Given that there are sources in Portuguese, perhaps this would be a good article to write in the Portuguese Wikipedia? To be in the English Wikipedia there have to be (I suppose) sources in English, or translated into English. Pan Dan 14:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, personaly, I believe that being popular IS a good reason, but whatever, it's just my opinion. Acording to [1] tought, the site was choosen as "site of the year", as is visited by 120.000 people every day. Too bad it's in portuguese, as it is pretty much all material about it (not much I found, but not much I researched). What I can report you is that at every Sunday, at the sports program of TV Globo (by far the largest one in Brazil), there is one charge featured every week. The author also made some animations for the Big Brother (Brazil) show. The site was reviewed in Veja magazine, one of the biggest in the country. The author appeared in the television show of Jô Soares, a similar show in Brazil to David Letterman's or Jay Lenno's. Hell, in Brazil, the site is probably more visited then Wikipedia (and probably a LOT more then the Portuguese Wikipedia). But links and stuff? Sorry, I don't have. All the information in the article is easily accessible from the site - you just have to speak portuguese. Well, the informations on the article. The ones I posted here can't go for the article because I don't have links to prove it. They are true, tought. algumacoisaqq 00:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Also: I know the article lacks quality and such, and it's hard for people from outside to know about it's importance just from looking at it. But it could have being asked, I don't know. This isn't the first, or the second (well, it's the third) article for deletion that I see complaining about web based stuff, when it just shouldn't.
- Comment. Being "popular" isn't a reason to be in an encyclopedia. If you can show me why this is notable per our guidelines (i.e. passes WP:WEB), then I will be happy to change my mind about whether this article should be kept. Pan Dan 23:40, 5 October 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.
