Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capoeira toques
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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Capoeira toques[edit]
- Capoeira toques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
As per WP:NOT#MANUAL—Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook. Visor (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article basically consists of a series of rhythms for the game. Also fails WP:N due to a lack of sources (reliable or otherwise). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Toques are capoeira. I've created a version with most of the notation cut out, here. It seems that most of the issue is the imbalance of notation/text, but that in itself is not reason to delete. It is both notable, and verifiable, contrary to the assertion above. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the weight to provide sources to prove notability lies on those who add the content. The old version is certainly better than the current, and gets rid of the WP:NOT#MANUAL concerns. Still lacks sources, however, so it still fails WP:N. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I decided to do further editing. It isn't current policy to delete every article without references, but in any case I've added some cursory ones. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the weight to provide sources to prove notability lies on those who add the content. The old version is certainly better than the current, and gets rid of the WP:NOT#MANUAL concerns. Still lacks sources, however, so it still fails WP:N. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and thanks to User:Mostlyharmless for improving the article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Article fails WP:N, but I will change my vote to keep if reliable references will be given. Note there is a Wikibooks, where these toques instructions can go. Visor (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article is now encyclopedic and referenced. Visor (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2008 (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.