Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Carvalho


 * 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 no consensus. Note that Timberlack is a blocked sock.  Sandstein  11:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Rodrigo Carvalho

 * – ( View AfD View log )

References provided are non notable, majority of them are from Twitter and other primary sources. Two books he wrote are available on Google Books but no significant coverage in secondary sources found for them either. Almost every other reference is an article written by him for the organization he works for. Dial911 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Out of 22 sources, two are from Twitter, about minor details (also confirmed by other sources). Most sources are from major news outlets in Brazil, like Grupo Globo (one of the biggest media comglomerates in the world), Grupo RBS, Quem (magazine), Terra (company), and also some local newspapers. Article was created a few minutes ago, I doubt the editor who nominated for deletion even had the time to read it properly, let alone check the sources. Subject is relevant (journalist nominated for an International Emmy Award and published author) and article is properly sourced. — Mr White  17:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * While creating articles for Wikipedia, please keep in mind that number of sources doesn't matter. The quality does. Reference number 1 doesn't confirm his DOB, reference 6, 7, and 11 are from Twitter, majority of the rest are from his news organization Globo itself. No significant, secondary, reliable and encyclopedia-worth content found for this journalist. Dial911 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * How is Globo not a reliable source? It is one of the biggest media companies in the world, recognized by many awards over the years. Also, most of the information on him is not from Globo. Globo is mostly used as a source to prove he did the coverage of the cave rescue in Thailand, the royal wedding, etc. All of his work that is notable are not sourced from Globo, but from other news organizations. The tweets are not used as sources for information on him, but on his wife, cousin, and dog. If the tweets can not be used as sources, that can be changed in the article, but why does  exists? How is this subject not encyclopedia-worth? A two times published author and journalist nominated for a Emmy for his documentary is not encyclopedia-worth? What criteria are you using? —  Mr White  22:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is the reference-wise breakdown:

1 is a bogus reference that does not even confirm his DOB. (Rejected reference)

2 take us to g1.globo.com (the company he works for) where we see a video clip from a news channel stating his documentary is Emmy finalist. (Might be an okayish reference)

3 & 4 list his books. No coverage, no reviews, nothing. Just listing of his books. (not enough to have standalone article on him)

5 tells that he is the cousin of another journalist working at Globo. And it basically cites their tweets. (again, heavily relies on primary source)

6 & 7 Twitter (bogus)

8 is somewhat acceptable but certainly not enough

9 is interview (primary source)

10 is literally 2 lines that repeat same information as Reference 2.

11 twitter (bogus)

12 takes you to globoplay (same company) and is interview. (again, primary)

13 tells us that his dog takes part in an interview (is it encyclopedic?)

14 to 20 takes us to Globo website (company he works for) Dial911 (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ 1 Reference to his full name, although not his birthday, I must have seen that date somewhere else, but the date can be removed if there's no reference to it.
 * ✅ 2 The number one news channel in the country is not an "okayish" source, but here is the official emmy website stating the same info.
 * ✅ 3 and 4 His books are listed on other references (8, 9, 12). I used his books as references to his parents and wife name, and the release date and publisher of the books.
 * ✅ 5 Independent source, from Portal Terra (not Globo).
 * ✅ 6 backed by source number 5, 7 is backed by source number 9
 * ✅ 8 Yes it is. What is the reason for ou not to consider it acceptable or enough as a source?
 * ✅ 9 Interview from an independent source. Also the piece is not entirely an interview, some information used was written independently by the authors.
 * ✅ 12 Interview in a big television program, in a major network, makes it clear the dog is notable by the public, information that is also backed by other independent source (number 13).
 * ✅ 13 Source mentions the dog appeared on television besides him multible times, other independent sources say the same. Notlable enough to deserve a sentence.
 * ✅ 14–20 Yes. His notable coverages (namely, the natural disasters in Angra dos Reis, 2010; the San Jose Mine accident in Chile, 2010; the French presidential elections, 2017; Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, 2018; the Tham Luang cave rescue in Thailand, 2018; and the canonization of Saint Dulce, 2019) are mentioned in sources 8, 9, 12, 13. Sources from GloboNews just corroborates that. — Mr White  23:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep References explained as per Mr White. Timberlack (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:33, 24 February 2021 (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.