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. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olavo de Carvalho[edit]

Olavo de Carvalho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subject seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. The entire article, with all its claims and footnotes, seems to offer but a single WP:RS, namely the interview [1]. An article based on this source would not be viable; an article based on the other sources is not properly sourced. Wareh (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• RESPONSE: With regard to the notability criterion, it is a known fact that de Carvalho is not and has never been a College Professor. He didn't even finish College, because his mentor, a priest, died before that. But he is a journalist and has written books, and is nothing more than an outspoken conservative journalist and writer. The problem is that he claims to be a Philosopher and attaches great importance to himself. So the point is: as an article about a journalist, this is ok, but not as an article on a scholar or academic, for he is not.

  The other point is that he is only known in Brazil for writing articles in newspapers, magazines and internet, which are considered polemic, funny and bizarre, to say the least. An encyclopaedic article on de Carvalho has to provide this information to the public and not to omit it, or else it would be completely dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.29.106.201 (talk • contribs) 18 January 2011

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the basis of the material in the long sourced article in the Portuguese WP. Very clearly a major political writer (gthere's also a page on him in the German and French WPs. I will normally defer to the judgment of the Portuguese WP editors in material on notable figures from their own language area, which they can judge better than we. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a major political writer. Just a funny guy, at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.29.110.100 (talk • contribs)

Are you sure you consider pt:Olavo de Carvalho to be "sourced"? It seems to me that the English article has one secondary source (an interview), but that the Portuguese article has zero secondary sources, basically only links to the subject's online postings. Wareh (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting, by the way, to note the changes in focus between the various wikis bios of him: in the Portuguese WP, he is presented as a regular, scholarly intellectual, by way of abundant quotes from his allegedly philosophical works; in the German WP, he is presented as a kind of saintly figure, who spent his childhood sick in bed, where he began his self-enlightnment. Alas, as seem on the German Discussion page, it was noticed that he is credited with speaking Classical Greek fluentlyCerme (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet notability requirements. While he might be known in particular niches, he is not well-known or possess any general notability in Brazil. Current RS do not adequately establish that, in my view.--Dali-Llama (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. The point is that de Carvalho is neither notable nor remarkable. He is just a journalist and not a very good one. He is known by some in Brazil because of the heated polemics he creates, as well as his articles in newspapers, which oftentimes cause people to laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedric Sands (talk • contribs)

Notability is not a matter of whether the subject is good at his job, or about whether he is ridiculed. A Wikipedia article about a subject is not an endorsement of that subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is an attempt of self-praising, yeas, it is an endorsement. If you, on the other hand, allow the public to know he is ridiculed in the circles he is known, then it is balanced. Cedric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.29.109.56 (talk • contribs)

My point is that the existence of an article is not an endorsement of the subject's views. If there are reliable sources saying that he is not a good journalist or that he is ridiculed then such content can be added to the article by the normal editing process. They are not in themselves reasons for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This guy operates in the outer periphery of Extreme Right politics in Brazil, and as such has gained some visibility. However, until someone gathers enough secondary (i.e. third-part) RS information about him, what we have here is mostly a piece of propaganda, probably coming from his admirers (which is IMHO clearly the case in the pt Wiki, as can be seem on its discussion page)Cerme (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Wareh (talk) 18:36, 28 January 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.