Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bapudi

message: So far, there has been nothing but intentionally induced confusion in my mind regarding the subject of this article. The involved editors have run Wikipedia process in circles trying to keep this article from being deleted. So, in the interest of making the article's subject clear, I have these questions.
# What are you referring to when you say Bapudi? If you cannot clearly and satisfactorily explain this, the article does not belong here.
# What verifiable evidence that you have that Bapudi exists? Note that the key issue here is Verifiability. I do not doubt that the article is written in a neutral POV, but rather question, how do you correlate your claims with reality?
# By what rationale do you claim that Bapudi is an encyclopedic subject as detailed on Wikipedia:Search engine test? The insignificant number of google hits leads me to strongly question the propriety of keeping this article.
# What of all the nonsense that has been on the page before, for example, Bapudi's "ancient untranslated canon", its existence as a musician, or maybe a foundation or a film studio, or an aesthetic? You claim that Bapudi is credited on a film. That's nice, but it is certainly not verifiable to standard, and above all probably woven from whole cloth.
The author of the article's inability to sufficiently explain what the subject of the article is should be grounds for deletion alone, much less the blatant disregard for WP:V, or any hope for the subject to be encyclopedic. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions regarding Bapudi

message: #Bapudi is an identity/name given or attributed to creative works that have included electronic music and film. Much as the 'Mitsubishi' brand identifies both automobiles and television sets, Bapudi identifies the creative output manufactured by various individuals.
#Foregoing philosophical discussion on the 'existence' of an abstract concept such as identity, the CCH-funded film 'Rise and Fall of Irvine Meadows West' was produced by Bapudi, as evidenced by the site www.trailerparkfilm.com
#Bapudi is encyclopedic in that it does not violate any of the official policy of what Wikipedia is not, as detailed in Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. The search engine test is a method used to approximate notability and, as discussed within Wikipedia:Search engine test, has its limitations and is only a tool, not policy. As evidenced above and on the AfD page, we strongly assert the notability of Bapudi.
#Bapudi does produce music, but it is not a 'musician' insofar 'U2' is a musician. Properly speaking, it is a musical group. I do not have anything to say in reference to the 'nonsense' to which you refer within the article's talk page as I am not the author of said comments.
--Godelfin 17:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by Author

message: In light of the new clarity that your answers have brought to the situation, your organization does not pass inclusion guidelines as set out in WP:MUSIC (regarding the musical aspect of Bapudi, or the WP:ORG proposed guideline. The reason I've asked the above questions is to divine precisely where the article's subject would fit in, and in view of the newly revealed information, it doesn't appear appropriate in this light, either. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for adding some sanity, Fsotrain09. I absolutly agree that we should follow the guidelines, however Kuzaar has abused which ones we should follow, and which ones he wants us to follow. Verifiability is official policy and Styliztic has provided sufficient information in this regard. However Kuzaar has tried to use Notability and Notability (org) to pass off as official policy and has based most of his argument on these. Notability alone is not a policy OR guideline. The latter, however, is only a proposed guideline. When a bill is being proposed in the US Congress, the citizens do not have to follow it until it is passed and made official, right? We all agree that we should follow official policy and guidelines, but Kuzaar seems to have taken things personal and throwing anything he can and passing it off as official criteria. I too repeat my request that an admin audit the situation. --Japhar8181 18:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In regards to the above explanations