Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Géa

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. Interested users would be welcome to work on the page in a proposed subpage of an editor's userspace without objection, if requested such a copy would be readily provided. -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Géa

Géa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Related to the AfD for the author Cláudio César Dias Baptista. This book does not appear to meet WP:N. While the Portuguese language sources are a little hard to sort out, none appear to be significant coverage. Daniel 15:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Géa and the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista which En Wiki members considered at first good to be published here are suffering a political attack from the En Wiki member named Antiuser.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All I did was remove a piece of original research from the article. The matter is being discussed at WP:AN/I#WikiHounding / Article ownership issues / Possible IP socks. XXX antiuser eh? 16:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It's very long, but that doesn't convey notability and not much else is seeming to. Besides, any book with a technicolour fractal on the cover and that isn't by Mandelbrot or similar should be burned. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please cool down, Andy was making a joke. I'm sure he didn't mean that the book should actually be burned, just that the cover was not to his taste. --Daniel 16:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've read the whole article now. BURN! Andy Dingley (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you see, dear Daniel, Andy is insisting in his childishness. You have a clearer mind, please read again the article and consider the sources mentioned there as the importance they really have in Brazil and Portuguese language countries. The book is great, I've read it! You can read it too, in www.ccdb.gea.nom.br, as I see by your phrase 'Portuguese language sources are a little hard to sort out'; so, you can read Portuguese to judge the quality of these sources and, so, you can also read the book! If you like Portuguese language, you will love to read the book as I did and, perhaps, as myself, learn a lot of that great language - there is no better source today, and the book Géa includes a thousand page dictionary also delightful to people who love Portuguese language. If not by the language, the lexicon twice William Shakespeare, you may be perhaps enchanted with the histories inside the twelve volumes of the book. Regards187.14.112.27 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - On the Portuguese Wikipedia, there is an article for the author, but even there, not for the book. The sources are just not robust enough to support a separate article for the book. Also, the article text is really fails to establish why the book is notable, other than opinion and plot summary. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not delete - Let's be rational and cool, analyzing the page. Here are the positive points: The author invested more than ten years of his life in writting a book, moreover, a twelve 250 pages volume book. The author composed a 1,000 pages dictionary to complement the book. The author utilized a lexicon twice the William Shakespeare lexicon in his whole opera and six times the lexicon of Camões in "Os Lusíadas". The author created a new language with extra words, doesn't matter if it's named an 'extraterrestrial language' or not. The author illustrated himself the twelve volumes with more than 700 3D pictures, so, he had to learn 3D Computer Graphics to do these illustrations and also the thirteen covers for Géa. The author studied programming languages for computer to create himself the active pages in a site also created by himself to publish himself the book. The author applied his audio experience to perfection the sound of the reading. The author wrote also metrified poems inside the book. The author of Géa composed music for the book. The author proposed complete inventions in the books which could work if tested in laboratory. The author abandoned his profitable carreer in audio to write the book. The author created more than one thousand characters for the book. The description of these characters is interesting in the page Géa. The author presented a Theory, the 'biorrelatividade' in the book. The stories presented in the page are captivating for people who has the habit of reading books - at least they captivate myself. The quantity of references is more than enough and the quality of some of these references is unquestionable, as it's the case of the reporting in Jornal da Tarde, in the Revista Trip (very important in Brazil). And here are the negative points: The book is written in Portuguese, not yet translated to English; Brazil is not England nor USA; people who see the page Géa here in En Wiki can't easily judge the merit of the book because they can't read it. Now I ask myself: Are those negative poits really negative? Is not perhaps an injustice being done against a perhaps great work as it was done also against Don Quixote of Miguel de Cervantes and so many great books which were recognized long time after their writting? Or as the pictures of Vincent van Gogh, who sold only one of them during his life and which were recognized so late? If you search En Wiki for pages about other books, you will see that very few, if any, has the merits I mentioned above for the book Géa. So, I am forced to conclude that the cause of the deletion proposal is not the lack of importance of the opus, but another unknown cause, external to the page itself. And I don't want to be one of the persons who will be remembered as the ones who deleted the page of a book that shows everything to be perhaps recognized as a great work. I vote for the permanence of the page in En Géa in En Wiki.William T. Johannes (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
' The author invested more than ten years of his life in writting a book '
That's his problem. Did anyone pay heed to the end result? That's ours. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have blocked user:William T. Johannes as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of user:Cláudio César Dias Baptista. JohnCD (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let the page complete during its judgement! I noted that this Antiuser is removing important information from the page Géa during its period of judgement for deletion. That's not a good policy. I would kindly suggest that the page is semi-protected in its complete form during that period. How can people judge the merit of a page which content is being reduced? That procedure is not what I understand as Justice nor what I understand as En Wiki policy.187.13.17.74 (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Do not delete, please - I would ask them not delete nothing in the text. If it is a text that talks about a book or author is a way to have thorough research on it.I read the book Géa and I found everything the article written here on En Wiki informs thus removing some of the text as it would erase part of the book and the story of the author. Any of you ever read a book and thought the best part of the book, the pages are blank? That's what I imagine to deleting some of the text that refers to something, like we're erasing part of it. I ask you to please leave the full text of Géa, otherwise they will be erasing part of the book, not just the description, for future readers may not know what the book actually contains. 201.75.82.71 (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not delete!. Well, that is a big disrespect to Brazilian literature. You guys are not talking about a mere book of 10 pages written "yesterday", but an entire collection, which took 10 years to writes it. It is a richly detailed stories, never told by no one else! GEA is a series of books with differentiated and intelligent language, which is not found in any other book in Brazil. I believe GEA is part of the highest Brazilian literature, it is very important to all Brazilians. Likalileal (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC) — Likalileal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • Do not delete Aren't 'third party sources' the persons who support here the page Géa? Aren't these third party sources (those persons) presenting other third party sources, as is the case of Professor Júlio Martins Jcms1506br, with his brilliant and rich comments and references in the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista also proposed for deletion, where he present the origin of book Géa and the third party references about the quality of that book? The fact is that there is a cruzade against a notable Brazilian, moved by another Brazilian, Mr. Antiuser. The page Géa present much more than the minimum references required by En Wiki, and the majority of these references are strong and notable. There are pages in En Wiki about persons who did nothing for the world, as for example some that you may find via Baronetage of the United Kingdom page. And there are pages about musicians, for example Túlio Mourão who were not more than hired persons in the Os Mutantes group and with only one (!) reference, only one external link (!) who nobody proposed for deletion. Cláudio César Dias Baptista was the founder of Os Mutantes group, was the person because of whom that group reached international renown, the page of his name is extremelly complete in references... but is being proposed for deletion, not only the page of his name but also the page of his main work, Géa. Why? Without him, there would never exist Os Mutantes and much less Túlio Mourão would have a page here in En Wiki. I can see only one reason: Cyberbulling, envy, people trying to make name at the expense of his illustrious name. So, although this page is not a place for voting but for consensus, I 'vote' for do not delete. 187.13.81.213 (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not make pointless irrelevant rants: I did not mention "third party sources" and you made no response to my point that THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE TOPIC MEETS WP:NBOOKS. So your comment is a complete non sequitor (as well as raising no issue relevant to this AfD). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned, yes, "third party sources" in the discussion for deleting page Cláudio César Dias Baptista. Here is the copy of what you printed there: '(bombastic advocacy from the topic's supporters notwithstanding) little evidence of depth of coverage in reliable third-party sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)'. The IP above was wisely answering all your 'contributions' for the deletion of great En Wiki pages! 187.13.122.59 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your meditation, Administrators of English Wikipedia. I know the En Wiki has rules. These rules are valuable and the fruit of long-term work of its members, without forgetting its founders, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Herself Wikipedia and every page that it contains have behind its creation and its existence the human impulse to friendship, excitement, enthusiasm. Who would create a page to present something that is not emotional, not something to which this value (and value is the result of emotion, not only reason)? Who would create a virtual encyclopedia without this magnificent engine that is the emotion? So if there is a page Cláudio César Dias Baptista and a page Géa on En Wiki, that's because there is enough emotion in people who created those pages; It's because that emotion and reason and objectivity emerged and turned the pages into reality. For the same reason, emotion, friendship, people find themselves inducted as members of the En Wiki devoted admiration and respect for Cláudio César Dias Baptista and his work, both as a specialist in audio and as a writer of Géa and several other books. These people, in launching these pages and their reasons for their entries here to ask for not deletion are not a 'party' politics, have no commercial interest or personal, but have that emotion and friendship and the respect and admiration for the writer and the work. For all that I ask the respected members of the Administration of English Wikipedia, the ones who will reach the consensus on whether or not erase the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa, that meditate upon this modest paragraph, also the result of emotion, to consult their souls and their reasons for everything they do - and if they feel and conclude the same that I, do not delete these pages, which only bring the Good and the Information, besides being a milestone in the En Wiki, with this discussion in favor of Emotion and Friendship, and this does not violate the En Wiki Rules and the Reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.81.213 (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.13.81.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see also this articles from tradicional and well known audio magazines in Brazil. The articles are one of the proofs of the notability of Cláudio César Dias Baptista, author of Géa, here proposed for deletion.

From Backstage magazine, Nº8 (1995) - The hidden face of Mutantes (original title in portuguese: A Face oculta dos Mutantes)
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqZTQyMTdkZGYtOWYxMy00ZjQ2LWI5MzUtMGRiZjdiMGQwMjRm&hl=pt_BR
From Backstage magazine, Nº 27 (1997) - An audio Luthier ( Orig. title in portuguese: Um luthier de áudio)
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNGZiYTkwYWMtNTQxYi00MGI5LTg5MDQtZmZlNzUxMGE4YmU4&hl=pt_BR
Música & tecnologia - ed. 28 [1991] - Cover history (Mr. Baptista appears with innovative 12 channel mixer with a size of a4 paper format totally conceived and designed in CADD).
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNjM0YWEyMDQtNTVhOS00ODNhLWJkYzQtNjdiNDU1YzU2MzZj&hl=pt_BR -- 187.13.81.133 (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* These articles might work as references for the article Cláudio César Dias Baptista, as they pertain to his work as an engineer and technician. They have no place in this discussion, which is about his book. Just because a person is notable in one field, it doesn't make their activities in another notable. XXX antiuser eh? 16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • How to improve an article which is semi-protected?. There is a new tag in the page Géa proposing its rescue. That tag suggests to improve the article. When I was trying to include the new strong refferences I just find in the above entering from another IP, I discovered that the page cannot be edit; so, cannot be improved, at least by me, who am not member of En Wiki. What can I do to improve the page, which I think is very good, or what can En Wiki members with access to the page do to improve it with the above references? Thank you in advance for what you may do! 187.13.107.90 (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~

      • Ne pas effacer*** Je viens manifester mon soutien à ces pages de Mr CCDB, je comprends bien le portugais, et je ne vois pas ce qui dérange les Anti, si ce n´est cette pose Anti, Anti-quoi? Mr CCDB est un écrivain doublé d´un inventeur, facultés propres à qui sait explorer les au-delà du quotidien, du connu, grâce à son imagination et ses profondes et sérieuses connaissances, indubitables au Brésil, où son nom participe de l´histoire de l´audiophilie et de la musique contemporaine, un esprit en avance sur son temps... 187.67.96.132 (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Philippe Ingrand187.67.96.132 (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting in French is a neat touch, but you're still using a Brazilian ISP with the same IP range as several already-identified sockpuppets. This is hardly a convincing advocacy for your cause. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. Andy Dingley: Mr. Philippe Ingrand's IP and the place he is now in the little planet Earth has nothing to do with the fact that he is French, what is easy to know by the reading of his magnificent paragraph in defense of what is precious to all the countries of that small planet. 187.13.66.178 (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Whom It May Concern:

I am Sergio Dias Baptista, founder and leader of the musical group Os Mutantes. My career with the band and as a solo artist has been a extremely happy one, for I only found great achievement on its history. I am co-founder of the Tropicalist (Tropicalismo) movement in Brazil in the sixties. We as a band printed an unforgettable mark on the Brazilian musical and social history, along with our brothers in the movement, such as Caetano Veloso and Gilberto Gil (former Brazilian President Lula's Art Minister).

I was graciously awarded, along with my band, the highest title of the city of São Paulo, one of the largest in the world because of our contribution to the history and the weight of our work in regard to the quality and longevity of our musical and social work. (Medal Padre Anchieta). We as a band have countless awards on my country, we were twice Latin Grammy nominee in USA in 2007 and our work has been praised worldwide by the formers of opinions and great minds of the musical scene such as Beck, David Byrne, Sean Lennon, Flaming Lips, Devendra Banhardt and countless others besides an immense press recognition from USA Today, to the cover of The New York Times, to the best world art magazines, journals and web, such as Mojo (magazine) (UK), Time out, and countless others.

I am here not to present myself, but to recommend an extremely valuable person who influenced our history in Brazil.

I find an absurd to even “question the Fact that Cláudio César Dias Baptista is or isn't a fundamental piece in the History of the Brazilian and entire world's musical universe. Without he's known contribution to my band and all of the other members of the worldly acclaimed Tropicália movement (acclaimed by the most prominent formers of opinion of the world universal musical movement) such as Beck, David Byrnes, Sean Lennon, The White Stripes, Belle & Sebastian, Devendra Banhardt, and several others, is at minimum a ridiculous waste of time of the precious members of this community.

The fact that the name CCDB and Cláudio César Dias Baptista is of notorious value for Brazilian’s historical reality, is of complete and solid Fact, fact this already acknowledged in the highest fonts of the world's musical and technical media.

Besides this the fact that he's a brilliant writer and poet is beyond reproach and he's work is recognized and already published in several medias such as Nova Eletrônica Magazine - EDITELE, and the uncountable sources of articles written about him and he's work.

So I wonder what is the purpose of this obvious deliberate attack of a single individual which we the “public” have no knowledge of he's real motives.

I can't believe that for an instant anyone who knows about the Brazilian cultural, social and musical history, would ever even consider a barbaric act of destruction and again cultural repression dictatorship and censure, Isn’t it enough what we Brazilians already suffered under the military government and they're censors, are we all turning back into the disgusting tortures of this awful and disgraceful period of our History?

Who's to say that someone, anyone, who did contributed to our proud rebellion against this bloody destructive political regime, would turn into the same spite and anger and lack of respect for a human being who really made its historical life by he's own means and self-construction?

I can only feel nauseated by this …

Please do not Delete Cláudio César Dias Baptista, without deleting also all about Tropicalismo, about my band Os Mutantes which he was part of, and the names of Caetano Veloso, Gilberto Gil and countless others...

Please let's be fair to who deserves its own accomplishments, please if you all, are going to delete him or he's work, please also delete all of us! For We are The Tropicalismo, We are the ones who did it all, and Claudio IS the fundamental corner stone of our history. – 189.46.183.107 (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Sérgio Dias Baptista. Os Mutantes[reply]

      • When Notable Persons as Sérgio Dias and Professor Júlio Martins (see enterings above) support anybody or anything, their voices sound louder than any En Wiki rule. Rules are products of the evolution of facts. If there are rules which are limiting the facts, those rules should be perfectioned - or En Wiki will not last. I see brilliant defenses, not of 'supporters' but of Notable persons, who present valuable arguments which should be considered with or without rules. If Elvis Presley or Einstein or any Notable whose time is not for learning En Wiki rules presented defenses here, their voices would be heard and no rule would be mentioned. I consider Sérgio Dias a so great musician as (if not greater than) Elvis Presley and no Einstein could do a best deffense than Professor Júlio Martins did above. 187.14.105.99 (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do not delete! My reading of the page Géa sees nothing of advertisement. If the article reads (or you read...) as an advertisement, why don't you improve it? Why to be destructive and not constructive? And how can you say that the page overestimates the book importance if you never read it ? I am one of the readers of Géa and for me the page is so smaller than the book that I have to smile when read arguments as yours, based (if sincere) in mere assumptions. 187.13.98.88 (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, do not delete. A great mistake is about to happen..
I'm not anonymous. You can verify who I am. Verifiable is one of the principles of wikipedia. Mr. Baptista is an author and Géa is a notable opus.
I've create a document with photos of the first book published by Mr. Baptista. This document contains photos of some pages and fit itself perfectly to proof that Géa is an Opus which was born several years ago.
Please check this document out: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNzUwZDhlYjQtZWEzZC00NDRjLTk3MTUtOTA4ZDJkNmUzOWE3&hl=pt_BR
This book was properly registered at Biblioteca Nacional (National Libray at the city of Rio de Janeiro). It is an undoubtable proof that Mr. CCDB had been an author and Writer for a long time and lots of his articles was published in a brazilian magazine called Nova Eletrônica (New Electronics). The characters of Géa were born at this time. I am trying to retrieve some of them, or most of all, to post a new proof.
Mr. Baptista has been victim of moral harassment for a long time in his life. Now I think this is happening again in a electronic and cyberway.
I've known several people (brazilian) who hate him and who loves his invents, his articles and his books. He has a strong pernonality. He use to tell us things about his invents, his articles, his first book that anyone can doubt in a superficial analysis. Several people doesn't like him since that time, simply because doesn't like, and used to talk bad about him, of course in his back.
I'm not an specialist in literacture but I've been studied language (science of all languages: Semiotics) for a long time. This a really opus.
Géa has all components that great opus Have. There's no doubt. And there's no Doubt that Mr. Baptista is an author and writer. He was indeed, for a long period of time electronic technician, but writer too. Now he only lives from and for Géa, Geínha and, who knows, other book in future.
I don't Know if it's the most important, or one of 100 most important opus, or one of 1000 most important (an so on...)
Doesn't Matter. It's an important opus. I've examinated all books. I've received the PDF files on 2006, 2nd semester. I've red several parts. But the curiosity make us to walk throughout the books and I didn't read all books (each one from the scratch to end page) unafortunatelly by lack of time. It's a charmed text, we start and we cannot stop (how many writers can do that?). And if you consider that the characters are inspired on a real past life of a people and a band which still are conquering fans auntil today around the world, all the history gains up a kind of own bright. Mr. Baptista certainly will not conffirm that information because is equal to tell someone the end of a film.
Géa meets itself with all principles of Wikipedia. Perhaps a more acute examination can reveal the needs to rewrite someparts. I cannot judge that, because everything I can see in that page it's true.
The reference about the Géa's lexicon that is twice than Shakespeare is a kind of affirmation that Mr. Baptista does I've told you before. I can Imagine how many people had thought He is a crazy Person. But he is not, it's true. Raw true. I am not saying (nor him) that he is better or greater than shakespeare. And He doesn't binned words to make a quantity. He created original words which makes sense in Géa Opus. His peculiar way to tell certain things, sometimes creates this kind of aversion.Jcms1506br (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • To Hrafn
Be polite. Follow the rules. I've red every line, page and link about wiki rules. We used to do this everyday to our academic papers.
There are person (a lot, but not all, of course) who reads manuals, instructions, rules... And Follow.
I think you didn't understand something, or simply you don't want to understand for unknown reason.Jcms1506br (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Jcms1506br: (i) Stop shouting and excessively indenting your comments -- it's not polite. (ii) Nothing either you or your fellow-travellers have had to say bears any resemblance or relevance to any Wikipedia policy or guideline -- so either you have not read them, or you have failed to understand them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weight - Seeing the weight of the defensors arguments and the lenght of this page I think that this very fact already shows the importance of the book Géa! Why so many persons would discuss an unimportant matter? Please, do not delete Géa! 187.13.111.97 (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WHY THIS ARTICLE SHOULD NOT BE DELETED

I am Jeff McCarty, a filmmaker who has devoted his life to celebrating the work of great artists, including Os Mutantes, the most important and influential of all Brazilian rock bands which Claudio Cesar Dias Baptista was an essential and integral part. Please see my IMDB page here for verification: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1037484/.

I strongly disagree with the entire motive behind the sudden campaign to remove "Gea" from Wikipedia. Who cares if the book is self-published or not? It is an enormous achievement by a person of immeasurable significance in the history of Brazilian culture. As evidence, please consult Carlos Calado's published book on Os Mutantes http://www.amazon.com/Os-Mutantes-Psychedelic-Adventures-Brazil/dp/0967056683, where there are entire chapters devoted to the life and work of Claudio.

To remove "Gea" from Wikipedia would be as criminal as removing the entry concerning The Beatles "Carnival of Light". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_of_Light "Carnival of Light" is a track that's barely rumored to exist at all, has never been officially released, and has been heard by virtually no one. Just because The Beatles are more famous than Os Mutantes doesn't diminish the importance of Claudio's work. If Paul McCartney or JD Salinger or almost anyone else had written a twelve part epic piece of prose even rumored to exist, there wouldn't even be the faintest call for a deletion. Let the life and work of Claudio Cesar Dias Baptista stand as testament enough to the inclusion of "Gea". To do otherwise is a great insult to world culture and Claudio Baptista's proud place in it.Jcmccarty (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)— Jcmccarty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The difference between this article and Carnival of Light is, all promotional talk and hyperbole aside, that Carnival of Light provides references from reliable sources such as the BBC, CNN and The Independent, that speak to its notability. Nobody here is trying to diminish Mr. Baptista's achievements as an author, but Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not truth when it comes to the inclusion or deletion of articles. Mr Baptista's work as an inventor and engineer might as well be notable, but there don't seem to be many sources that meet the same standard as far as his literary work goes. Nobody here is "out to get" anyone else - this all boils down to Wikipedia policy. Please take a look at WP:N, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. XXX antiuser eh? 18:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. Antiuser, I understand the arguments you present here. They are valid. But I read the page Géa and saw that there are sources enough to sustain the page in En Wiki. When somebody starts to create his/her first page in En Wiki he or she learns the minimum number of sources and quality that must have to create on the page is accepted. The Géa page far outstrips that number and the quality of its sources is good, some sources are indeed of excellent quality. Added to the sources that Professor Júlio Martins presented above in this discussion and in the discussion for deletion of the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista, the number of sources far exceeds the minimum allowable and the quality of the sources is exemplary. If you have not entered the links provided by Professor Júlio Martins and has not researched the sources that are in the links and the references without links (also valid) of the page Géa, I kindly suggest you do it and reconsider your position. --187.13.68.239 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff: if you read WP guidelines, you'll find an article about 'because this is on here, this should be too'. Hold on while I find it. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 13:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article you're looking for is the aptly named WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. XXX antiuser eh? 17:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • IN REPLY TO MR. ANTIUSER

As a Brazilian, you must be familiar with the legacy of Os Mutantes, and Claudio Baptista's critical role in it. I fight it ridiculous that anyone would even dare question the "notability" of Mr. Baptista's work. By the virtue of his name alone, there is an audience for "Gea", always has been, and always will be. "Gea" has been written about in a number of legitimate forums, and if the references are not numerous enough for your tastes, or if you find a few of the phrases in the article objectionable and in violation of wiki rules, then at least allow the article to be revised, not rewritten. I am the director of a film about Os Mutantes, as written up in "Rolling Stone" magazine, and believe me....when the film premieres, there will be even a larger audience for "Gea", and people will find it strangely absurd that LONG AGO somebody even dared waste the time, as well as my time and everybody else's, in trying to delete this article.

I have a question for you, Mr. Antiuser: are you an employee of Wikipedia? If so, then maybe you think you are doing your job, and if that's the case, then allow the writer of the wikipedia article on "Gea" to make the proper changes, to make it as "legitimate" as you earlier classified the article on "Carnival of Light". If not, then what exactly is your motive in all of this? To me, it sounds like nothing more than harassment. The epic prose completed over 10 years by Claudio Baptista is of sufficient interest to anybody who knows anything about Brazilian culture. Allow the words of one of its great luminaries, Sergio Dias, as written above, serve as a proof enough that the deletion of this article is a crime, and nothing more than an unwarranted attack against world culture. 99.68.213.111 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have "employees". Everyone here does what they do voluntarily. Please explain how I'm not allowing "the writer of the wikipedia article on 'Gea' to make the proper changes"? If someone wants to edit the article, they're free to do so, I'm not an administrator, I can't keep anyone from doing anything. In fact, I wasn't even the one who nominated this article for deletion. I haven't even !voted on this AfD, but somehow my name keeps getting dragged in here as if there was some hidden agenda against Mr. Baptista. XXX antiuser eh? 19:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then my apologies....if someone can point out exactly what's so objectionable, then I'll be happy to edit the article. I just strongly object to its deletion. 99.68.213.111 (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted. A good place to start would be Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and reliable sources. XXX antiuser eh? 19:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the nomination it says "This book does not appear to meet WP:N. While the Portuguese language sources are a little hard to sort out, none appear to be significant coverage."

You need to read WP:N and find significant coverage in reliable third party references that are NOT blogs, forums or Facebook.TeapotgeorgeTalk 19:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is more about Mr. Baptista himself than about the book, but there's enough in it about the book to make it usable as a reference. The only place I found it though was on Mr. Baptista's website. I don't know if it's an issue to cite it, probably not since it's a scan of the newspaper. It still doesn't change the fact that the article has to be rewritten though, as it stands it seems overly hyperbolic and promotional and isn't encyclopaedic at all. XXX antiuser eh? 04:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"He may be known for his electronic inventions, especially those related to the production of sounds, such as the famous Golden Guitar... However, at 62, Cláudio César Dias Baptista does not want to be remembered for those innovative creations but for his new work, Géa - learn more at www.ccdb.gea.nom.br." It's an interview with Mr Baptista, but what it says abut the book is only what he says. I don't see a problem with citing it, but it is not an independent comment about the book. JohnCD (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they are repeating what it says about the book, it still counts as coverage. A reliable source thought the book notable enough to fill an article with information about it. Dream Focus 12:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. WP:BK: "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes... publications where the author... advertise or speak about the book."" If it is just an interviewer regurgitating what the author tells him about the book, that is not the interviewer writing about the book: we are not getting anyone's opinion of the book except the author's. JohnCD (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are quoting it out of context. It says "This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book". This is an interview, not just them copying something from a press release or quoting what is written on the flap section of a book. Dream Focus 15:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't intending to be deceptive about the context: my reading (though I suspect we aren't going to agree about it) is that while press releases etc are given as examples, the sort of interview given by an author with a book to plug, which just consists of him telling the interviewer about the book, is also covered by that clause, which is looking for evidence that someone other than the author has read the book and formed opinions about it. Where is the "sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary"? JohnCD (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage in reliable sources has been verified. Dream Focus 12:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only question here is whether the book meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for inclusion. Many of the arguments made at great length above are quite irrelevant to that question, including:
  • The book is very long, and has a larger vocabulary than Shakespeare,
  • It has 700 3-D illustrations
  • It took ten years to write
  • The author previously had an important role in a notable band
  • To delete the article would be censorship/an insult to Brazilian culture/a barbaric act of destruction, cultural repression, dictatorship etc
  • "When Notable Persons as X and Y... support anybody or anything, their voices sound louder than any En Wiki rule"
The relevant considerations, Wikipedia's criteria for books, are set out at WP:Notability (books).
  • Criteria: it is clear that #1 is the only one that might be attained. That would require showing that "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself... Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes... publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."
  • Threshold standards: "Books should have at a minimum an ISBN (for books published after 1975), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library."
  • Self-publication: "In this regard, it should be especially noted that self-publication... indicates, but does not establish non-notability."
  • Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement. A complicated series of statements on Talk:Cláudio César Dias Baptista makes clear that if Mr. Baptista did not actually post these articles he is at least in close touch with the person who did. Moreover, he has been trying to post articles in Citizendium about himself and his book, his website prominently displays links to the Wikipedia articles, and his reaction to a deletion discussion on Portuguese Wikipedia suggest that, despite his disclaimers, he is, in fact, anxious to get publicity and legitimacy from having articles here. The flood of single-purpose accounts overwhelming these AfDs with irrelevant harangues is also strongly suggestive of an off-wiki campaign.
Conflict of interest and promotional intent are not absolute bars to acceptance of an article, but they mean that the evidence for notability must be looked at particularly hard. We therefore come back to the fundamental question: is there evidence that "the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself?" The guideline here is note 4 to WP:Notability (books):

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book... The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

The sources presented, including Jornal da Tarde, are interviews with the author, which repeat what he has to say about the book. What is needed, and what I do not see, is comment about the book by people (like reviewers) independent of its author, who have read it.
I conclude that while, on the basis of his earlier career, Mr Baptista is probably notable enough to have an article, his book is not. If it is more widely published, if people actually read it and publish significant comment about it, then one day it might deserve a stand-alone article; but it is not Wikipedia's role to help it become well-known, and for now a (short) reference in Mr Baptista's article is the most it should have. JohnCD (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete! Let Mr. Antiuser show us an universal law or rule where we can read what people need to do for to be recognized as writer. Wikipedia's rules aren't enough because it´s not a scientific page. Megatron Turbo BR (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The usual way to be recognised as a writer is to have your works published, and read by many people, and become the subject of independent reviews and discussion; but there is no "universal law" about it. Wikipedia's rules are how we decide what goes into Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mr. Baptista is read and is recognized as a writer: In the page http://www.ccdb.gea.nom.br/opinioes_sobre_gea.html, which is in the author's site (as it should be) you will see the opinions of large number of Mr. Baptista readers. Several opinions are written in English, although the author's published books are in Portuguese. You may count the number of readers who invested their time in writting for Mr. Baptista and authorizing him to publish their opinions. Of course, there are much more readers, who didn't write nor authorized. In the 'CCDB Livros' section of the author's site you will find beside the thumbnails of the books covers links "Saiba mais" (Know more). These links open pages with sumarize the books and present some opinions of readers. There are several other pages with opinions of readers in the same site, which you may open if you enter this page: http://www.ccdb.gea.nom.br/links_para_as_paginas_mais_visitadas.html ans search the word "Opiniões" (opinions). Self-published books are as published as the books published by large companies. Reading books on-line is as reading books as reading them in printed paper. Please, do not erase page Géa. 187.13.46.232 (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:NBOOK with no independent reliable sourcesTeapotgeorgeTalk 16:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-published work which doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Sean (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear sirs: here is the complete list of links present today in the "Géa" page.

From these links, although all above can be verified and exist, the following are absolutely independent, reliable sources and mention the work of Mr. Baptista as an author of books.

Please do not erase page Géa. 187.13.46.232 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BUT they are blogs and forums which are NOT reliable third party references.TeapotgeorgeTalk 17:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also this articles from tradicional and well known audio magazines in Brazil. The articles are one of the proofs of the notability of Cláudio César Dias Baptista, author of Géa, here proposed for deletion.

From Backstage magazine, Nº8 (1995) - The hidden face of Mutantes (original title in portuguese: A Face oculta dos Mutantes)
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqZTQyMTdkZGYtOWYxMy00ZjQ2LWI5MzUtMGRiZjdiMGQwMjRm&hl=pt_BR
From Backstage magazine, Nº 27 (1997) - An audio Luthier ( Orig. title in portuguese: Um luthier de áudio)
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNGZiYTkwYWMtNTQxYi00MGI5LTg5MDQtZmZlNzUxMGE4YmU4&hl=pt_BR
Música & tecnologia - ed. 28 [1991] - Cover history (Mr. Baptista appears with innovative 12 channel mixer with a size of a4 paper format totally conceived and designed in CADD).
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNjM0YWEyMDQtNTVhOS00ODNhLWJkYzQtNjdiNDU1YzU2MzZj&hl=pt_BR -- 187.13.81.133 (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.46.232 (talk) [reply]
  • Delete - I appreciate that a lot of work went into this article and that the book may well be a fine one. However, the unsourced essay-like nature of the piece, combined with the fact that this is a self-published work, combined with the fact that the article was apparently produced by the author, makes this a pretty clear call for deletion on several different grounds. Ultimately, we are dealing with self-promotion here, in my opinion. I will add my further opinion that I don't think it's a good policy for Wikipedia to have articles for every book that comes down the pike. Those that are written up should be influential in terms of generating discussion and debate in broader society, in my estimation — in other words, a high bar for inclusion-worthiness. I wish the author the best, but this page doesn't seem to get over the notability bar, in addition to the other concerns expressed above. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2011 (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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FG%C3%A9a