Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Petrus Kalil

Antonio Petrus Kalil

Antonio Petrus Kalil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

For an article on a living person, this has to be one of the most negative I've ever seen. It has a number of problems: i) For a negative BLP, its sourcing (foreign language) isn't great; ii) it has little biographical information, but rather centers around two negative events; iii) it drags otherwise-not-notable people in by namechecking them in his 'misdeeds'; and iv) an individual close to the subject requests its deletion. I propose we do just that. Daniel (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep pending investigation. IF the sources support the claims in the article, then the article meets WP:N (significant veriable secondary discussion) and WP:BLP, and should not be deleted merely because someone is upset by the content. However if the sources less than 100% support the content then all unsourced content should immediately be deleted per WP:BLP. (Being foreign language sources I'm not able to put an opinion on whether they support the article or not.) As a potential defamation issue it might be worth notifying an admin so that more speedy steps can be taken to look over the article and take appropriate action. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. There are 14 references to 12 sources. I guess his lawyer or family is upset, but that is not a reason to delete. Why don't they put their objections on the discussion page, providing reliable sources, so we can try to address those if necessary? - DonCalo (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your keep rationale fails to address any of the four points that I raise in my nomination. Daniel (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I. Foreign language sources are as valid as English ones. The Brazilian newspapers mentioned are major well-respected ones. That you cannot read them do not dismiss them as reliable sources.

II. These two negative events are exactly the two that make him notable. I would love to add more, and will do so when more material will be available.

III. His fellow bicheiros Castor de Andrade, Anísio Abraão David and Capitão Guimarães, all have articles devoted to them, as well as judge Denise Frossard. Prosecutor Antônio Carlos Biscaia has not (yet?), but has one on the Portuguese Wikipedia. He currently is a politician and deputy for the State of Rio de Janeiro. These people seem sufficiently notable to me.

IV. I cannot react on this one because I do not know the individual nor his objections. As I said before he/she is free to react as long as he/she does not remove referenced material and provides reliable sources in his/her contributions. - DonCalo (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I. Not on BLP's they aren't. English sources are always preferable for negative and scandalous content.

English sources are preferable but not necessarily required. People are free to use Google translate for instance. - DonCalo (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

II. Where people are only notable for one or two negative events, WP:BLP1E applies. This article should be about the event(s), not him.

WP:BLP1E is about one event. Here there are at least two, as well as more context. In particular relating to his family which shows an ongoing interest in criminal activity. He was involved in the illegal gambling operation together with his brother and passes it on to his son. Two major events that shocked Rio de Janeiro, plus sufficient evidence of ongoing activity in a very popular but illegal gambling operation are sufficient to dedicate an article to this person. - DonCalo (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

III. Your post conveniently forgot to mention his son or father.

See the answer above. They show the ongoing interest of the family in the game. - DonCalo (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

IV. He/she is also free to raise their objections privately with the Foundation, as they have done, and be listened to.

Sure, I guess it concerns this person. He/she has been properly advised how to go about editing an article, but not removing referenced material. - DonCalo (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Daniel (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Keep article but remove unreferenced material. Ret.Prof (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Same as above. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 20:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep No valid rationale for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The reason that DonCalo tries to justify the relevancy of Antonio Kalil being a Wikipedia article is unjustifiable, since all of the articles mentioned for his argument were simply written by him (with a considerable negative bias on Castor, Anisio and Capitao Guimaraes, and positive bias on Denise Frossard). As many people (including myself) often use Wikipedia as a primary source of information, it seems quite an absurd that an anonymous writer who seems to have personal grudges against Mr. Kalil and other bicheiros, be the one writing his biography, solely based on loose articles related to two negative incidents of his 80+ years of life. When DonCalo mentions that he “would love” to add more, it clearly shows his negative intentions towards Antonio Kalil. Could it be that DonCalo is actually Denise Frossard, looking for publicity? Just like she has done with this case when trying to run for governor and had her famous public comment against people with HIV, that for some strange reason “slipped” DonCalos article about her? Also, the events mentioned included more than 80 people altogether, and you don’t see articles about them, like for example Judge Carreira Alvim, who was also arrested on the Operation Hurricane, and is definitely more notable than Antonio Kalil. With that said, I agree that the events might be worth mentioning, but on their own entry and not thrown on someone’s name as being the one responsible for that. Also, despite the fact that some articles have been written by big Brazilian papers, many of the “Facts” presented in this article are based on hearsay, lacking consistent Proof. The simple fact that something was published in the newspaper doesn’t automatically make it become true. Last time I heard, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, and not just a compilation of news clippings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsmarketer (talk • contribs) 02:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that I - and I am not Mrs. Frossard - wrote the other articles is not a reason to delete this one. Positive and negative bias? I am sorry, it is not my fault some people break the law and others try to uphold it - with considerable risk for their life. Since this AfD I added more, for instance about the philanthropic activities of the Kalil family. You call that negative intentions? You are free to add an article about judge Carreira Alvim, but the fact that there isn't one, is - again - not a reason to delete this one. Kalil has been convicted, you call that hearsay? The second case is still pending. Newspapers, and certainly major ones as you just admitted, are considered to be reliable sources. None of these newspapers deny the facts as presented here. Slandering other people is bad practice to defend your case. - DonCalo (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

While saying that this article should be relevant for Wikipedia your argument was that it is relevant because other people involved in the case also have articles, but you forgot to mention that the only one interested in these articles is you, as you have been the only collaborator. About the bias in the appraisal to Denise Frossard? If your articles are simply based on “relevant” news clippings, it seems quite odd to me that you forgot to mention her most notable quote in the recent years, in front of all the Brazilian congress making wrongful comments against handicapped and HIV+ people (which is also against the law in this country). Once again, just the fact that Antonio Kalil participated in these two events does not mean he is relevant for a biography here. And if you were really interested in writing a Biography and not just a simple compilation of negative news clippings, a little more research should be done.

My argument is not other people involved also have articles. That was response to the one who wanted to delete the article. I think the article is relevant because it concerns somebody who is involved in a illegal but popular game, as well as the impact the people who control that game have on the criminal justice system and politics in Rio de Janeiro. Kalil was one of the most influential gambling operators in the association (the so-called cúpula do bicho) that runs the game and the Rio Carnival. The article is about Kalil, not about Frossard. If you have problems with the Frossard article, you should address it over there. There are now 19 references to 16 different sources, which indicates that sufficient research has been done. - DonCalo (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason I mention Frossards article is to show how biased your opinion is. Since this discussion started, you have made several changes to the article of Antonio Kalil. On the otherhand, despite the fact that you have been informed of something negative and quite notable as it was pronounced in the national congress and had a major repercussion, no changes were made. This clearly shows how inclined you are of defamating Mr. Kalil and defending Mrs. Frossard. The statement that Kalil was one of the most influential gambling operators is your personal opinion, and if you did your research right you would know that he never even had a samba school.

Kalil has been convicted and a couple of years later he was released as nothing could be proved against him, and he fact that these newspapers published about his arrest doesn’t mean everything they wrote is true, as much has been of hearsay, just like some of the prior accusations. The fact that they didn’t write anything about this release doesn't mean that it didn't happen either, just that it is not the kind of news that sells papers (thus another point in not being such a relevant person). Also, in the past years, the federal police of Brazil has been made famous for bringing the media to their operations, premeditatedly crucifying the accused right at the moment of arrest, but not even mentioning when some of the accused were found innocent or that nothing was proven against them.

Given the fact that the bicheiros corrupt judges - you admit yourself that the criminal justice system in Brazil is far from perfect - it is not surprising that he was released after three years (he was sentenced to six for forming armed gangs). What you call hearsay, are facts published in the major newspapers in Brazil and are considered reliable sources. What you say about the federal police might be true, but that alone is not a reason to delete the article. - DonCalo (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am getting lost in your information now. If you say that the Brazilian judicial system is far from perfect, where do you take the credibility of your article? From the fact that the justice (which you just mentioned not working well) accusing him of something? From the fact that some newspapers wrote articles about based on these accusations? Or is on your "credibility" based simply on your personal beliefs? Also, concerning your sources, two of them do not even mention his name. Another one is a personal opinion article of someone that is publicly know to be against Mr. Kalil. Not to mention another that already mentions being hearsay on its title! About the federal police, the fact that only the negative articles are written but nothingelse is written when he is declared innocent seems quite important in this case, especially when this is the only situation where he is mentioned in the press.

Regarding your supposed contribution about the Kalil family Philanthropy, the fact that he donated $40,000 to one single foundation is barely worth mentioning considering that it is only a very small fraction of the family charity, as much greater sums that have been donated, including the maintanance by family funds of a day care center which has been providing free education to kids of 150 underprivileged families every year, for the last 16 years.

If you prefer that I delete that section, that is OK with me. If you have reliable sources that back up your other claim, you are free to add them. - DonCalo (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you OK with deleting something supposedly positive and so angry when mentioning the deletion of something negative?

My point is that that there seems to be two major problems with this article:

1. The article about Antonio Kalil lacks relevance. I’m not saying that the two events were not relevant, and maybe they do deserve an article for themselves (which they don't have), but not as being the Biography of an 80 year old men.

The fact that someone is 80 years old is not a reason to delete an article. I think I have sufficiently proved that the article does not lack relevance. The fact that there are no articles on the two events is also not a reason to delete this article. To the contrary, if there were articles on these events an article on Kalil would even be more necessary to give background on the people involved. It is impossible to do that in an article on the event. - DonCalo (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

the fact that he is 80 years old is relevant when you write a "biography" based on two events. If he was indeed a relevant person worthy of a biography in wikipedia, there would be much more written about him, and not simply articles that talk about thesame two events over and over again. Also, many of these articles aren't even about him, and just mention his name in passing, while others dont mention his name at all.

2. Its writing has been extremely biased and offensive on a way that clearly shows that DonCalo has some kind of personal interest on publishing these offenses. Not to mention some of the absurd comments on his article where in one line he mentions that the group “eliminated” 180 people and on the next line he claims they were found responsible for killing 53 people, and on the following line he states that the group was back to the streets due to clemency. As bad as the Brazilian judicial system is, I can’t believe they would release and drop the charges against these “massive murderers” who were responsible for 180 deaths!

Stop accusing me of personal interests. I don't have any, I am just trying to contribute to an encyclopedia. The only one who seems to have a personal interest is you. You start to sound as his lawyer who needs to clean Mr. Kalil's name, now that his trial is approaching. The differences between the amount of people eliminated have to do with the difference between an indictment and a conviction. The reason he was back on the streets again you just explained yourself: there is something fundamentally wrong with the Brazilian criminal justice system. - DonCalo (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your comment as me being a lawyer as a compliment, my degree is in international business, but im glad to be regarded as a good defender of what I believe is right, as a lawyer would. Im sure his lawyers are good enough to defend him and doubt I could be of any help in the case. Also, as much as I love reading from Wikipedia, I doubt it would have any influence on a trial. When you mention that there is a problem about the Brazilian justice, why is it that this problem would be about him getting released, but not of him being arrested in the first place? Also, I am still confused regarding your murder statement: So you are saying he was indicted for 180 people, convicted for 54 of them, and then simply walking out as if nothing happened? That sounds a little strange even for Brazil, doesnt it?

The content is offensive, biased and minimizes the life of a 80 year old man to two events that included other 70 people, and despite the supposed notability of these events, they don’t even have they're own article on wikipedia.

You are repeating yourself, I already answered those issues above. You are free to add facts as long as you can back them with reliable sources. There is no reason to delete this article. - DonCalo (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am simply standing for what I believe is right. I am sure that if someone insulted your family the same way you are doing to mine, you would also try to take some actions.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsmarketer (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that this user "Sportsmarketer" is nothing more than a sockpuppet of Daniel who proposed the deletion, probably to stack up votes in his favor, given that almost everyone here voted for it to be kept. I suggest that someone file a user check request to see if indeed my suspicions are true. The account is new and has not made any edits, with the exception of this page. Definitely a sockpuppet! Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 14:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Joyson, I havent introduced myself. Not sure what a sockpuppet is, but quite sure im not one. My name is also Antonio Kalil and I am the grandson of the person mentioned in the article. My grandfather currently suffers from Alzheimers sindrome and I doubt he even knows what Wikipedia is and sure enough wouldnt even care of seeing his name here as he has no idea what this is. I myself, though, am a great fan of this encyclopedia, and have used it quite a few times for reading. Didn't really know it was so easy to write on it too, maybe ill try to write it a little bit more now that I have an account of my own. The reason I am asking for the deletion of this article is that the difamation on this article, not only hurts my name, but also my family as a whole. I believe you would understand how agravated someone would get when your family name is being thrown on mud by people who dont even have the decency to identify themselves. Im sorry if I am not really familiar with the whole wikipedia law as I have never written to any entry, but from the articles I have read, this has to be one of the most agresive and biased that I have ever seen. That alone should be enough reasons for this deletion, and it should be even worse when adding the problems with the sources and lack of relevance.