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. -- DQ (t) (e) 05:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dener Pacheco

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He has just a few experience as an actor. He does not meet notability guidelines (the page was already deleted from pt.wiki, it.wiki, es.wiki, fi.wiki, he.wiki, ja.wiki for the same reasons) Lucas (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete How other Wikipedia's conduct themselves is irrelevent to en.Wikipedia, as the standards set for notability or lack and sourcing or lack are all a bit different. So in looking to our own guidelines, we need to determine if 108 episodes of a notable Brazilian series meets our own WP:ENT... a guideline generally accepted as meaning multiple but different productions. Logically, and as the actor died of lung cancer, he will not be taking part in any more productions... and so his one (even 108 epiodes long) single production fails WP:ENT. HOWEVER, It may be possible for Portugese reading Wikipedians to show the seven years of coverage, coverage preceding his role by years and continuing after his demise,[1] is coverage in Brazil for things other than (but yes, including) his 108-episode role, which could then show the subject as meeting WP:GNG overall, even if failing WP:ENT. But in the absence, keeping this artcle could be seen as a violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Schmidt, how other Wikipedia's conduct themselves is not irrelevant in a debate (= decision making process): it must not - and cannot - be the element for which to decide the deletion or not, but it is not irrelevant; rather it often gives interesting information (please note that as sysop on it.wiki I am the first defender of the "wiki" independence: but independence is independence, "irrelevance" is another thing :-). In any case, as we can see he has had only a secundary role in the soap and for just one year: this is "not notable", in my humble opinion. --Lucas (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our decisions and discussions here are to based upon the policies and guidelines set up to govern here. The point I was making is that other Wikipedias have far fewer articles, far fewer editors, and their standards of notability or lack are not ours. While yes, this article might or might not be kept when using the standards we use here, listing other discussions that do not use our standards is irrelevent to this discussion. But the editors of those non-English Wikipedias are always welcome to comment here and to discuss their views. I opined a delete, did I not? My own decision and comments are based upon the standards HERE... not elsewhere, nor are they to be influenced by what others may have done elsewhere by use of different standards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:43, 28 July 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.