Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fr. Chico Monteiro

Add links
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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. Chico Monteiro[edit]

Fr. Chico Monteiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Notability not established. Rklawton (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per WP:BIO1E, cover the event (if notable), not the person. Alternatively, rename, take out the unnecessary biographical info and expand the Rev. Msgr. Chico Monteiro v. The State of Goa section into an article if that case passes the notability guidelines.--Boffob (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for his involvement in historic events. A move of the page with a retitle and refocus of article would be fine with me. The article could use some work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what evidence do we have that this event was "historical" in a notable sort of way? Rklawton (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At first I wasn't sure, but after reading the article thoroughly, the case doesn't appear notable. I don't know what ChildofMidnight find particularly historic about it.--Boffob (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'QUESTIONS' to Rklawton (talk) : How often in history has the Holy See intervened on behalf of a citizen of another country and successfully prevail in a quid pro quo scenario? How often has one country appointed the Queen’s counsel to represent a citizen of another country? Does deleting all relevant links to the article prior to putting it up for 'deletion' debate reflect fair representation of Wikipedia’s code of conduct and editing policies? As I understand, the case got coverage in TIME magazine. What more is needed to define “notability”?

Why go after a notable entry worthy of public knowledge (which was previously lacking in Wikipedia's encylopedic vault) merely because I happen to be its author -- and as a backlash to an article on me which has been placed in the line of fire! Similarly, also taking the lead initiative in placing another article for deletion that I had originated and compiled -- Fr. Lourdino Barretto.

--Dommartin99 (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply given the self-serving nature of your own article, I thought it might be worth checking your other contributions. I found a lot of link-spam and a few more self-serving articles. Seriously - you think an award you made up yourself is worthy of an article? The piont here is that it appears you don't understand our policies regarding a subject's notability. As for removing links, when the relevant links are all from your website, then yes, they fail our reliable sources test and I removed them as I would remove any link-spam. If Time magazine has an article on this fellow, then by all means, add a reference to this article. Keep in mind, however, that we don't write articles on a subject just because Time magazine did. When a subject is notable, it isn't difficult for experts on that subject to find some really great sources. You, the expert, appear to have primarily yourself as a source. This gives us a strong indication that the subject isn't notable according to our standards. If this should change in the future, that's great. We'll still be here, and if necessary, we have a deletion review process. Rklawton (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for directing me to Wikipedia’s reliable sources. The links to the majority of the articles which you have deleted prior to putting my article for deletion discussion are “credible published materials with a reliable publication process”. The printed copies were transcribed and posted on my website to provide a reference link. Online versions of the articles were not in existence at the material time. Of the 14 articles that appeared in print, two are from my pen. Help me comprehend if this constitutes "self-serving" interest or “link-spam? And in the event they do, by all means delink them but not at the price of depriving the subject of his place in Wikipedia. Additionally, I’ll be glad to forward copies of the printed articles for verification upon request. --Dommartin99 (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional References Fr. Chico Monteiro Scholarships http://www.goacom.com/joel/news/2006feb/03feb06.htm


"Fr. Chico known for his zeal and enthusiasm is considered to be the moving force and the father of modern football" http://www.goa-fa.com/index.php?q=node/16

http://osdir.com/ml/culture.region.india.goa/2003-07/msg00263.html --Dommartin99 (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. Chico was a great man. How often does one find a priest (Monsignor) holdign important postitons in the church heirarchy takeon the Government. He was imprisoned for so many years. this page should not be deleted at any cost--Alfredpinto (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPA Alfredpinto's account was created solely for the purpose of voting against this AfD. Rklawton (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. i never felt the need to create an account earlier. But when i saw that rklawton was interested only in deleting this page about Fr. Chico, i couldn't keep quite and therefore was forced to make an account. Fr. Chico was a great man - greater than you, dommartin and me. And therefore, it irritates me when someone who did not know fr. chico even attempts to delete his page. before deleting this page, why dotn u try to google fr. chico's name. you will find pages and pages of anectodes, messages etc written by his admirers all over the world. --Alfredpinto (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

these are a few of the links that i could find on the net. over the days i shall check for more. a man who has so many pages dedicated to him should be treated with respect http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02009.html http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg30949.html http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=137522 http://www.goa-fa.com/index.php?q=node/16 http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01717.html http://goancauses.com/Fr.%20Monteiro.htm http://goa-kranti.blogspot.com/2007_07_14_archive.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/AXEGomes.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/DrCarmo%20Azavedo.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/Remembering%20that%20Gentle%20Smile.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/Hypnotizer%20of%20Youth.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/Understanding%20Life%20.%20.%20..html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/Fr.ChicoMonteiro.htm http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/A%20Great%20Soul.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/Open%20Letter%20to%20God.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/A%20Good%20Man%20Passes%20away.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/Tribute%20to%20Fr.%20Chico.html http://www.dommartin.cc/FRCHICOMONTEIRO/Pe.%20Chico%20-%20Tribute%20to%20a%20Friend.html--Alfredpinto (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Blogs and self-published websites do not qualify as reliable sources for our purposes. Rklawton (talk) 17:39, 2 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fr._Chico_Monteiro&oldid=1069656114"