Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana de Barros

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 userfied and delete this version without prejudice. Article may be recreated from the userfied version if/when notability concerns have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. As a side note, in reviewing this, I'm somewhat concerned about vanity and OR issues. Material is taken from first-hand interviews with the subject by someone seemingly quite close, which presents OR and COI concerns. I would suggest that before reposting, several experienced editors review for these types of issues. AKRadecki 17:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adriana de Barros

Adriana de Barros (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject does not meet notability standards for people. Appears to be vanity. -- Merope 18:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This reads a bit like a resume. Reference WP:AUTO. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:V. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If you review the actual artwork, "visual poems", the link refs you'll see how her work is distinguished online and why it was awarded and featured for many years. Why it is different and worth reading or seeing. Do a Google search about the artist and you'll see. She combines various disciplines into her projects, providing uniqueness to her creations. She has also launched an online magazine, Scene360, which provides free articles within art, literature, film, and web for all readers. And her illustration and poetry has inspired many people. If that isn't notable enough, than I'm not sure what else is required to fit the criteria. Breathe200 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Based on the comments above. We have placed third party links into the article, this to provide authenticity of facts. Awards, visual poem mentions, interviews on third party sites.Breathe200 22:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC) — Breathe200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • It still sounds li ke a promotional article, and I am still not seeing how Adriana is notable. My !vote stands as is. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep on the basis of the awards listed in section 3. But it needs better documentation.DGG 03:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

With much consideration to comments on wiki discussion, we have added refs, and citations, and more. We've made many changes to improve the article. Breathe200 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• • ...are you her publicist? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment No, I'm not her publicist. If you have any constructive criticism on how to improve the article to Wiki standards, please advise. Thank you. Breathe200 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The standards we're going to work from are going to be primarily notability, verifiability, and reliability of sources. In Adriana's case, the policy at WP:BLP will also apply. Another thing to consider as well is that, per my original !vote, it looks a lot like a promotional article - in fact, I initially thought the article was autobiographical. (Also read WP:COI for that one.) See, we're not looking for something that necessarily makes a person look good, we're looking for something that explains who this person is - and why they're notable. See WP:NPOV for that note. I'll post a welcome template in your talk page - this will give you some other pointers to work from. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Hi Dennis, Thanks for your comments and links. I will review them in hope to improve the article. I'm a bit confused what the problem is, that is why I asked. There are facts in the article that are biographical to give historical refs and a timeline to understand the person's work and what they have provided of substance to the community. I first reviewed other web designer and artist articles on Wiki to see what your project looks for, and how the content should be displayed. We thought it was within format and not supposed to be "publicity". I even spoke with Adriana, to get more facts and quotes to make this more human, releastic, first person comments from interviews as sources. For example she wanted to be a filmmaker, and she isn't one. So this is realistic note from her bio, and not at all positive or putting her as a superhero. She didn't pursue her dream, but has managed to make small films in flash, and those have really inspired many people. They have not been commercial films...The reference of Scene 360 is another example, non-commercial over the years, many articles written for free. And I think many more readers coming to Wiki can learn about 360 and read web related article, design, film...and it isn't about Adriana. I always thought that the point about being "Notable", is someone who is remarkable, has something positive done to show to others. So the notes in this article are not to make this person just "look good," but rather show what she has done and why it is notable or worth reading about. When providing information, especially for notability reasons of an artist, it seems impossible to write without showing positive examples. Nonetheless, I will review your further guidelines to make fixes. If you read most profiles on wiki, almost all make the person sound like they are good at what they do, that is why they have been noted by others in the first place...in books, sites, etc. (e.g. Joshua Davis, Floria Sigismondi...). It is unavoidable, if you are writing about someone who's done many things, and you list it. The work should speak for itself in the end, and people will see if it is what it is. I thought that was the point of providing the article, to share more info about someone. Breathe200 17:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm currently reviewing the guidelines you sent Dennis, to adjust the article so that it is appropriate for Wikipedia. I would like to ask if the citations and reference/sources are appropriate/suficient? I had to research and speak with the Adriana to get evidence of facts to note on this. A funny thing about submitting to Wiki, is that I was reading on WP:COI "Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms — this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage." From someone who is new to Wiki and is trying to submit an article (yes I possibly didn't submit correctly, I apologize but didn't even think it would appear as publicity or something less than information and writing about an artist and connected projects. I based the info on information found online to add into the article. I had reviewed various accepted articles on Wiki as template and thought it would be okay to submit similarly.) I understand there are policies and they need to be respected, however I did not find the initial comments motivational or helpful. This definitely works both ways, and a policy is not only for the submitter but for the person putting an article in question. So I would like to work together and not against, so that I can write more articles and participate in this project. Thank you. Any further advice to improve the article is appreciated. Breathe200 18:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Dennis, can you please review article to see if it is fine, or if there is something specific I should work on? I've taken out original research, I thought I could write openly based on things I read about a person. I've kept to the facts, and have linked to the refs/sources on each part of the article. I've also gotten permission to put parts of Adriana's official biography up (which I had already previously based as source/real facts), under quotes, and they're linked to references too (for veracity and also ref. credits). I've also read some more guidelines, those that you sent me today. Thanks. Still need to finalize the reading this weekend, but have realized what some of the mistakes were, and made changes according to that (i.e. added a quote from an interview to verify a comment I wrote about the visual poems and the intent of the artist in making it. In addition to some other changes now with links to refs). I hope it has improved substantially. Breathe200 20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - smacks of self-promotion. Biruitorul 06:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is very easy for anyone to log on and say "delete". Aside from Dennis and DGG, I would hope that those questioning the article can in fact pinpoint specifically what can be improved and where. I've made further changes based on comments about "publicity", which isn't the goal of the article. I've based much info from refs online and bio of the artist, so some might have sounded more publicity than it was meant as it was based from references. I hope the article has improved. If you have anything to address, please give hints to what is wrong. For example, DGG stated there were lack of refs to the Award section, and I've tried to fix by including a "reference section". Sometimes I add more thinking that will make the article better based on comments, and right after I'm attacked about "publicity". If the article requires proof of facts, I've been doing that. I do not think verifying facts is publicity at all. Breathe200 15:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it's still more of the same. Most of it is quoting articles and interviews - that would be copyright violation, and that alone would be grounds for speedy deletion. The only improvement I can suggest is to not make it look like an advertisement. I might suggest sticking this in your user space to work on it, and go from there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-Notable. Huge vanity article. Stellatomailing 17:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks Dennis. I was open to fully rewriting the article and not give up because of a few comments. This is like an attack column. Is the artist on trial, this isn't a court case. People have opinions. Fine, but give a chance for things to evolve and grow. Or else who will write for wiki? I'm okay with helpful comments, but one-liners do not seem to contribute to anyone writing a article. I would like to write about a musician after this one. If this is to be deleted than do. Otherwise, if I have a chance to rewrite to fit site's goal, than I will try to do that. Wiki is not a circus, it is not a vanity press, so please bear in mind your comments are contributing to a gossip column. People use the "delete" talk as a form of expressing their frustrations and being mean. Be helpful, be positive to those submitting. Dennis's comments have helped me understand what the problem is. Breathe200 17:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Dear Breathe, that's not the case. The current point this person is in her career does not ensure in my opinion her inclusion in Wikipedia. When she becomes famous enough, she can have an article. Even the inclusion of several links and the additions to the article does not seen to assert the central point discussed in the deletion, that is the importance of the said person.

Stellatomailing 18:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Stella, if you and others actually contribute with comments in this manner, I can understand the problem of the article and make changes to improve the reading and not appearing as an ad or as something else that has been commented. My goal has never been to write an ad, laugh, it seems like I'm writing one which ever way I direct or change it. I do, however find some comments lacking "good faith", or not even positive of Wiki's mission and actually go against it with notes about "vanity" (read policy about that). I will try to understand the comments, and some I respect as they've provided some guidance on the issues. What I have been doing is trying to understand the problems, and make edits to improve the information. I will attempt to rewrite this fully in my own words based on research I have already done. I will take out the quotes and comments that infringe copyright, I actually thought that citations could contribute to verability as that was an initial comment and I tried to resolve that matter. If I can get this improved; I will. I have tried. If I can please the court (smile), I'll surely try to write the next article about the musician who I find of interest too, as well as contribute in other existing articles. What I ask is how can I improve the article at hand? Be specific. What would you like to know about this specific person to centralize and assert the issue of information or notability? Are the art examples problematic, is there a paragraph? What exactly? I look forward to your response. Thank you. Dennis has given me helpful hints, and I'm already rereading wiki policies and also rethinking how to edit this. Breathe200 18:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How do I add this to my user space? Breathe200 18:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Hi Breathe, my personal opinion based on the policies is that Adriana is non-notable; I do not think the article itself is at fault, just that the importance you are attributing to the person is not enough to add her to Wikipedia - this is the base of my "Vanity" comment. Other users opinions may differ. Stellatomailing 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You mean this discussion or your article about Adriana? Stellatomailing 18:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Dennis mentioned adding this to my user space to work on, the article. I'm not sure how to do that. Breathe200 18:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh. Copy the entire article, click [1] and paste the article. Stellatomailing 18:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You can also create a sub-page for your userspace. Edit your user space (by clicking on the red-linked username of yours), create a link by surrounding some text with brackets, save it, you'll get the red link that will be your sub-article. Click on the red link, and there you go - an edit page. Paste your work, save it, and vavoom, you have it on your user page. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Modified slightly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I will do this. Do I leave the current article online as I edit on the user page? I suspect the user page allows for me to edit and ask for comments before publishing. Breathe200 19:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, leave the current one alone, and we'll get it from there. As far as the userpage one, you will be able to edit it however you want, and you can encourage others to comment as well. Check those links on your talk page that I posted for you. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Dennis, thanks for the hints and help. I've read more of the guidelines you sent (manual style), and have been making changes to the userpage version. Specifically with notes you've given me, in mind. How do I ask for comments to the userpage article? I'm not asking for feedback already today, but in a day or so I should have some changes. Just want to make sure it is a step forward to wiki-happy readers (smile). Breathe200 22:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Check out the {{helpme}} template. It might get you feedback directly - it will more likely, though, get you a pointer to feedback. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has been significantly improved since the beginning of this AfD. It now has 23 references and multiple external links showing the subject is notable. Great job by Breathe200 to fix it up. Paxse 12:15, 29 May 2007 (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.