Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brother Carlos Oliveira

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Carlos Oliveira

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Also WP:SPAM that meets speedy criterion WP:G11. Ergo Sum 23:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: fails WP:GNG, not notable as spiritual practitioner or anything else. QueerEcofeminist🌈 05:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has referencing included that already demonstrates sufficient in depth coverage per WP:BASIC. It is badly written and promotional but deletion is not for cleanup. It is clearly not spam. Not clear that any WP:BEFORE has been considered here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All the published works listed are self published, with, according to online info, the shortest being 9 pages and the longest 64. 5Q5|^✉ 12:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, his publications are not notable. I don't think he meets WP:NAUTHOR. What makes him notable is the fact that people are writing about him and making documentaries about him. 13:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While he has appeared in some reality television, he largely is not the focus of the pieces. There may be other media about him out there, but the filmography listed does not constitute significant coverage. Vegantics (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BASIC, the question is whether there is significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other. We can strip out the self promotion, but we are still left with significant coverage from the National Geographic (reliable), the History channel (not reliable. May suggest there is an issue of fringe here), and Vice (no consensus on reliability, but this report appears to be balanced, and is also significant - albeit that the church is opposing the practice). There are a number of news reports too, which do count towards the multiple sources required. This is just the information on the page. We have multiple sources, including an in depth radio interview. Now we may not believe in what this person is doing or the way he is going about it, and we certainly would be right to think this page needs some serious attention, but regardless of that, it is not clear to me at this stage why we are discounting these sources. No source review has been conducted nor considered of the existing sources, and already we have !votes that he fails GNG (suggesting the delete should be speedy, whilst not giving any speed deletion criterion, I might add). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only reliable sources I'm seeing in this article that actually discuss the subject are National Geographic and NBC. The problem is simply being interviewed by, quoted by, or mentioned by a reliable news outlet does not make a person notable. In each of these instances, the sources are not writing about Oliveira per se, but are writing about exorcisms and just happen to discuss his work. It's the same as if a news organization covers a story about bakery and interviews a baker about what he does. That certainly does not make the baker notable. Here, there is scant coverage and none of it is actually substantially profiling the subject directly. That makes him unnotable. Ergo Sum 23:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Try again later if more evidence of notability and lasting contribution to his field can be established. 5Q5|^✉ 13:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a "reality TV personality". Article is promotional, and the references are very shallow. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only WP:SIRS source appears to be a Vice article. The other cites might qualify, but they all 404 at this point, even the archival links.Kalethan (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't the place for him, advertising his wares. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 11:31, 11 July 2023 (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.