Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bapudi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Questions regarding Bapudi

So far, there has been nothing but intentionally induced confusion in my mind regarding the subject of this article. The involved editors have run Wikipedia process in circles trying to keep this article from being deleted. So, in the interest of making the article's subject clear, I have these questions.

  1. What are you referring to when you say Bapudi? If you cannot clearly and satisfactorily explain this, the article does not belong here.
  2. What verifiable evidence that you have that Bapudi exists? Note that the key issue here is Verifiability. I do not doubt that the article is written in a neutral POV, but rather question, how do you correlate your claims with reality?
  3. By what rationale do you claim that Bapudi is an encyclopedic subject as detailed on Wikipedia:Search engine test? The insignificant number of google hits leads me to strongly question the propriety of keeping this article.
  4. What of all the nonsense that has been on the page before, for example, Bapudi's "ancient untranslated canon", its existence as a musician, or maybe a foundation or a film studio, or an aesthetic? You claim that Bapudi is credited on a film. That's nice, but it is certainly not verifiable to standard, and above all probably woven from whole cloth.

The author of the article's inability to sufficiently explain what the subject of the article is should be grounds for deletion alone, much less the blatant disregard for WP:V, or any hope for the subject to be encyclopedic. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:15, 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 Wikipedia: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 17:16, 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 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Author

  1. Bapudi is an identity/name given or attributed to creative works that have included electronic music and film. Much as the 'Mitsubishi' brand identifies both automobiles and television sets, Bapudi identifies the creative output manufactured by various individuals.
  2. Foregoing philosophical discussion on the 'existence' of an abstract concept such as identity, the CCH-funded film 'Rise and Fall of Irvine Meadows West' was produced by Bapudi, as evidenced by the site www.trailerparkfilm.com
  3. Bapudi is encyclopedic in that it does not violate any of the official policy of what Wikipedia is not, as detailed in Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. The search engine test is a method used to approximate notability and, as discussed within Wikipedia:Search engine test, has its limitations and is only a tool, not policy. As evidenced above and on the AfD page, we strongly assert the notability of Bapudi.
  4. Bapudi does produce music, but it is not a 'musician' insofar 'U2' is a musician. Properly speaking, it is a musical group. I do not have anything to say in reference to the 'nonsense' to which you refer within the article's talk page as I am not the author of said comments.

--Godelfin 17:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In regards to the above explanations

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)

  • Response: Kuzaar, my friend, you have done it AGAIN. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".. If you wish to scrutinize the official guidelines and policy of wikipedia, you MUST stop misrepresenting what is official and what you wish was official. Don't post a link and casually state that it is a guideline (proposed or not). This repeated behavior of abuse is intolerable. AGAIN, I request that an admin review this case as you are clearly unable to properly define wikipedia policy/guidlines. --Japhar8181 18:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Response:Your argument is weak because the WP:ORG guideline is first of all, a proposal. Secondly, Bapudi makes no claim to be an organization like a charity or fraternity so even if WP:ORG were policy or accepted guideline, it would not apply. I feel Bapudi more closely resembles an Art_group than national organization, and we have made full efforts to verify its existence and notability by means of an important grant, which you are advised to consider. Furthermore, the article in question clearly defines Bapudi in its proper scope, outside the limited definitions set forth in WP:MUSIC.--Godelfin 18:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may weigh in here, there is still a basic contradiction over what Bapudi refers to. Is it the artistic/aestetic movement, or a film production company? Is the company named for the movement? If the article's scope is simply the company, it does not meet the standard set forth by WP:CORP guidelines. If the article is dealing with the entire movement, then more effort should be made, in good faith, to follow the spirit of the guidelines of verifiability. Yes, Japhar, they are guidelines, but if you really want this article to be included, I for one do not see the harm in trying to follow them. That would strengthen your case more than any debate here could. Please at least end this cycle of giving one definition here or on the article talk page, and another in the article itself. At the same time, I repeat my earlier request for an admin to review this case. -Fsotrain09 18:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding some sanity, Fsotrain09. I absolutly agree that we should follow the guidelines, however Kuzaar has abused which ones we should follow, and which ones he wants us to follow. Verifiability is official policy and Styliztic has provided sufficient information in this regard. However Kuzaar has tried to use Notability and Notability (org) to pass off as official policy and has based most of his argument on these. Notability alone is not a policy OR guideline. The latter, however, is only a proposed guideline. When a bill is being proposed in the US Congress, the citizens do not have to follow it until it is passed and made official, right? We all agree that we should follow official policy and guidelines, but Kuzaar seems to have taken things personal and throwing anything he can and passing it off as official criteria. I too repeat my request that an admin audit the situation. --Japhar8181 18:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to the above, Japhar: Notability is a serious enough foundation of an article to be included that it is in both WP:CSD (under A7, regarding non-notable groups of people) and WP:BIO, both of which are official policy, neither proposed nor editorial. I am doing my best to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia by putting my foot down when I see an article that does not appear to be up to standard. All the action I take, I take for the betterment of Wikipedia. Perhaps one day your movement will become notable enough to merit inclusion; Until that day, it must be remembered that Wikipedia would just be a repository for internet detritus without its guidelines, standards, and regulations. However, I do encourage you to positively contribute to the encyclopedia in the future. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmmmm.....very interesting: "Thank you for the speedy response! Helpful, approachable administrators such as yourself are what make the encyclopedia such a lovely place to contribute. --Kuzaar" --Japhar8181 19:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Kuzaar, interesting that at NO point did you ever reference those links/criteria. --Japhar8181 19:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that the note to W. Marsh was left last night, after he advised me about how to approach people with opposing opinions in this AFD. And yes, I did refer to those policies when I questioned the notability of your organization in the AFD. Also note that W. Marsh is one of the administrators that commonly closes debates in AFD. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)