Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolando Carbonell

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 of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Rolando Carbonell

This entry should be deleted. Rolando Carbonell should not be included in the canon of Writers from the Philippines. Respected writers and critics dismiss his works. He is not included in significant studies and anthologies in Philippine literature in English. He does not have any national or international reputation as a writer. Here is a sample of his poems. The Philippines' foremost expert in Philippine Poetry in English and University of Chicago-trained Professor Gemino H. Abad does not include Carbonell in his landmark critical essay Mapping Our Poetic Terrain: Filipino Poetry in English From 1905 to the Present. That is virtually a mapping of important Filipino poets in the 20th century and onwards. 7258 14:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not withstanding the above, the article is also devoid of any real or useful information. Very short and pointless. --Crossmr 17:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep its short because its a stub and has many google hits. Lack of "technical maturity and emotional control" isn't one of the criteria for deletion yet. MarsRover 07:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep unless charges are substantiated. Your assertions, if true, would have me voting delete, but first you need to back them up. As the nomination stands right now, it's facially insufficient. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am relisting this nomination as I believe not enough discussion has taken place to determine consensus on this issue. Rje 13:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - two books listed on Amazon ( both out of print and published in 1961/1963 ) is not a great deal but the AfD notes do not demonstrate he's not notable. Other authors ( like T. J. Bass ) on wikipedia have a small output but are still notable - Peripitus 13:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment He has two books listed on Amazon, but the only info Amazon has on them is that they were published. It has no information on the content of the books. In addition, both books are out of print, and nobody else is selling them through Amazon. And not that it makes a difference either way (but I just decided to check), but eBay doesn't list a single item for Rolando Carbonell, without quotes around the name, in listing titles or descriptions. -- Kicking222 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ignoring the nominator's claims (not they are necessarily invalid), the article does not assert sufficient notability. Just because he's written books is not proof that anyone has read them. "Rolando Carbonell" gets only 50 Google hits, and "Rolando A. Carbonell" gets only 26. Even if he's from the Philippines, he's contemporary enough that a notable writer/poet should get far more Google hits than that. In addition, the external links are to a high school's web site and to a Geocities page, and neither of those are "reliable sources" which assert importance. -- Kicking222 13:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Week delete Weak keep based on having two books published. It makes sense that a Philippine writer published in the 1960s would likely not have much Google presence. Will reconsider vote if said books are nonexistent, self-published, vanity-press, or merely pamphlets. Update Changed vote to weak delete per 7258 that subject's books were vanity publications. Still willing to be convinced otherwise if more information should arise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are numerous anthologies of Philippine Literature in English or Philippine Poetry in English since 1898 (Works by important writer-critics like Gemino Abad, Bienvenido Lumbera, Leonard Casper, Doreen Fernandez, Roger Bresnahan, Isagani Cruz, Ophelia Alcantara-Dimalanta, Caroline Hau, Roland Tolentino, J. Neil Garcia and many others, for instance). There are numerous articles, theses and other studies on what is generally accepted as important authors long before the age of internet. Filipino authors who emerged before World War II like Paz Marquez Benitez, Francisco Arcellana, N.V.M. Gonzalez, Nick Joaquin, Bienvenido Santos and Jose Garcia Villa are still being studied extensively in universities offering courses in Philippine literature including UCLA, UC Berkeley, University of Michigan, University of Hawaii, Cornell University and several others. Remarkably, there isn't a single major anthology, textbook or course in these universities that has included Mr. Carbonell. Considering that Mr. Carbonell is still alive, there should be discussion about his work if he is important enough as a writer. But nothing is being discussed about him. Ask any Philippine Studies scholar or critic anywhere in the world. His 2 books were vanity publications. Mr. Carbonell was never published by any major publisher in the Philippines and anywhere else. - 7258 14:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Amusingly, the second link on the page is to a library, which notes that nobody has ever borrowed Mr Carbonell's volume. A Google search for Horizon Books, Manila, turns up only Mr Carbonell's books. All of this seems to back up 7258's assertions regarding notability. If anyone can provide sources for this article beyond what's already been supplied, then my vote could be swayed, but right now there's nothing out there. Vizjim 14:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I was going for delete, because the article doesn't provide substantiation of any significant status. However, "Respected writers and critics dismiss his works" indicates that he is actually known, as unknown writers don't get their work dismissed, so I would like an explanation of this. We are not here after all to evaluate the quality of his poetry.Tyrenius 16:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I should have earlier used the word "ignored", not "dismissed" to describe his presence as a writer. It seems rather strange that although he has been published since 1960s, his works have never been included in important studies and discussions on Philippine writers, whether in a positive or negative way. No one considers him important enough to be discussed by artists and scholars of note. - 7258 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I take it then that he does not have an "alternative" or "underground" reputation, and he is just insignificant, as notable writers/poets can certainly be shunned by the establishment if they are rebels? I would be grateful for your comment on this. Tyrenius 11:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Carbonell does not have an "alternative" or underground" reputation. "Notorious" writers and artists who rebel against the prevailing established aesthetic styles and forms are widely covered by Filipino and international experts on Philippine Studies. Examples of these alternative and underground artists (who eventually became mainstream) are David Cortes Medalla, Victor Nadera (or Vim Nadera), Jessica Zafra, Paolo Manalo and Carlo Vergara. Though initially ignored by mainstream crtics, these artists had massive cult following that eventually forced the prevailing literary and cultural establishment to take note of their works seriously. Carbonell never had a cult following. He was never discussed positively or negatively by the major critics. As one entry had put it, his book has been in the Ateneo High School library since 1961 and yet, no one has borrowed it. - 7258 13:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking the time to answer. Tyrenius 14:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He has zero hits with Google Scholar and the EBSCO academic search engine. Non-notable. Ted 17:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per User:Vizjim's reasons. DakPowers (Talk) 17:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on the basis of comments by 7258. Tyrenius 14:37, 22 May 2006 (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.