Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Brazil

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Brazil. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Brazil|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Brazil. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to South America.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Brazil/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Brazil

Machine learning in Brazilian industry

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

This essay-like article, the result of a student assignment, really needs either WP:TNT or draftification since it is a mess of WP:SYNTH. Most of the sources are either: (a) not about machine learning/AI, (b) not about Brazilian industry, (c) WP:Primary government documents, e.g. "Plano IA para o Bem de Todos". Draftification was contested. Possibly AI-generated as well. One of the few relevant secondary sources, On the Brazilian Observatory for Artificial Intelligence, is non-independent since the authors are part of organizations that partner with the observatory.

If this is draftified, we should require the authors to submit through WP:AFC since they already contested draftification without solving the underlying problems. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Brazil. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:TNT required. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the highlighted points:

items a) and b) I kindly ask you to highlighted the references are not regarding ML/AI or brazilian industry sector because we took the information direct from the sources of the references and almost all of them are about AI aplication and/or brazilian industry or its sectors.

c) Regarding government documents, e.g. "Plano IA para o Bem de Todos" and others as bills, they are all public and to improve the access to the readers I just have inserted the PDF link access to the document. Those documents talk about what brazilan government and congress plan to do to improve AI aplication in Brazil and therefore we consider extremily important to the article.

Regarding On the Brazilian Observatory for Artificial Intelligence, we have removed it and replaced for the public access article that raises the same issue about the concernings about privacy policies of AI.

I am totally avaliable to make this work. Please anallyse the response and if necessary any more improvements I am on to do it.

thanks dears for the contributions. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese exonyms

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

Although the Portuguese article has lots of citations I am not sure that is enough to show notability on English Wikipedia Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Portugal. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a particularly strong exonym page, although I was disappointed to see it lacked sections for Angola and Mozambique, which would likely serve a more encyclopedic purpose than France or Greece. The Portuguese Wikipedia references seem adequate to me to demonstrate notability. If consensus is keep, ping me and I will try to make some improvements to it in the next couple weeks. - Ike Lek (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a prolific contributor to this article and a native speaker of European Portuguese, I have no reservations about writing the sections on Angola and Mozambique, with a view to enhancing the utility of the article. It is imperative to note that greater care will be exercised in the near future to ensure the inclusion of additional sources. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If such lists were confined to examples about which something more could be said, e.g. those that are unrelated to the endonym or distorted by false etymology, I'd say keep. —Tamfang (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with our opinion. Individuals who do not possess proficiency in Portuguese will encounter significant challenges in adapting toponyms to the appropriate Portuguese phonology and orthography. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then should en.wp include glossaries of everything that a learner of Portuguese might need to mention? —Tamfang (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these exonym articles are generally not notable Metallurgist (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bold claim to make without providing any evidence or rationale to back it up. Ike Lek (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a prolific contributor to this article and a specialist in linguistics, as well as a native European Portuguese speaker, I posit that articles of this nature are necessary on account of their educational value, cross-linguistic and cross-cultural navigation, and their potential to facilitate translation and multilingual writing. Moreover, they ensure searchability and disambiguation for those who wish to navigate not only any list of Portuguese exonyms, but also any other language, including even endangered languages. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cantrusthestory Thanks for your expertise. Could you possibly add some citations to this article? Perhaps some of those on the Portuguese article. Nowadays most citations (except pdfs) can be easily added by using the “automatic” option in Visual Editor. If you have any difficulty with adding cites please ask or just add them in the right place in a rudimentary way and some helpful Wikignome will tidy them later. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz (footballer, born 1982)

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

Declined PROD by an IP user. No-notable Brazilian footballer, played for Kawasaki Frontale and regional clubs in Brazil without WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brunno Ferreira

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not passing mentioned for verification. All fight fight records/reports (announcements and results) are considered routine report and can not contribute to the notability requirements. His highest world ranking is 28 - see here which out of the requirement of NMMA of world top 10. Cassiopeia talk 04:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Brazil. Cassiopeia talk 04:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There is minimal coverage about him, commenting on his fight/defeat vs. Magomedov in UFC 308 ([1] [2]and on his fight at UFC 313 against Petrosyan [3] [4]. agfight seems to me like a site focused on news about mixed arts, but UOL and BOL are reliable and independent sources. Svartner (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- All the sources you provided are fight records which means they are routine sport reports, and can NOT be used to contribute to the notability requirements. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - More sources [5] (Band) [6] (ESPN Brazil). Svartner (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - There two sources you provided are also fight records/reports (announcements and results) which means they are routine sport reports, and can NOT be used to contribute to the notability requirements. Cassiopeia talk 04:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Cordeiro

AfDs for this article:

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

I didn't find any WP:SIGCOV about him. Svartner (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NMOTORSPORT. The nominator has not provided any new argumentation since the last nomination, only link to the guideline. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. You'd think that he would be notable given his experience, but that does not seem to be the case; I can't find a single source to support notability. Although there is a good chance of offline sources existing, I don't think that it would be enough to prove notability. Also, for the WP:NMOTORSPORT argument, NSPORT is basically redundant now; since the 2022 RfC, articles now must meet GNG. Per the FAQ page on WP:NSPORT, "For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion". Unless independent/secondary/reliable sources can be found, then I don't see how the page can meet GNG. 1 ref is his own website, 3 are stats, and the last 1 isn't secondary enough for GNG purposes. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If we Googled this guy in 2012, there probably would have been sources but now they're lost due to link rot: "Pew Research found that, in 2023, 38% of pages from 2013 went missing." ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations

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

Since this article was created in 2011, it has been based almost entirely on citations to sources either from the ICOR itself or from its affiliate members. Attempts to find coverage in reliable secondary source turned up very little. Neither of the cited secondary sources in this article provide significant coverage, only giving the ICOR a passing reference in the wider context of another subject. A cursory Google Scholar search brought up a few self-published Marxist word documents, and one book about German political parties that only mentions the ICOR in passing.

As I have been unable to find significant coverage of this international organisation in reliable sources, and as notability is not inherited from any of its affiliated organisations, I do not think this meets the notability criteria for organisations and am nominating it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Morocco, South Africa, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Iran, India, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe there may be a language / coverage issue, as this is English Wikipedia, and there are two or three English-speaking organizations within ICOR. I will look into it this week. Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most online sources I found were either non-independent or were not in-depth. The one book cited in the article was written by Stefan Engel, former chairman of the MLPD, a member organization of ICOR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources cited by Castroonthemoon are not in-depth (and the last one doesn't seem reliable), and I don't see why we should make an exception here; they have brought up the possibility of a merge with the MLPD, but firstly I don't think they're really related that much, and secondly half of the ICOR article is based on primary sources and the other half is based on passing mentions, so it would be WP:UNDUE. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not looking good for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have looked into international reports on the organization. There's a surprising amount of information surrounding the group's involvement in Syria, and the hospital that the group built. Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards Keep Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Castroonthemoon can cite specific sources with significant coverage, I'm leaning delete. The only mention in Swiss media is [7]. Toadspike [Talk] 08:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources used in the article, I believe [8][9][10][11][12] satisfy requirements. Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a single-sentence passing mention: "Finally, anarchist volunteers organized another unit at the end of March 2017, the International Revolutionary People's Guerrilla Forces (IRPGF), declared as an "informal anarchist armed organization" whose purpose of armed struggle was placed beyond Kurdish issues, in a global perspective." (via Google Translate). The second link is exactly the same page as the first. The third is another single-sentence passing mention ("Hinter dem Projekt steht das linke Bündnis "Internationale Koordinierung revolutionärer Parteien und Organisationen" (ICOR), das um die marxistisch-leninistische Partei Deutschlands (MLPD) gebildet wurde.") The fourth consists entirely of quotes from someone who has been "supported" by ICOR, which is not independent coverage. The fifth isn't independent either – it has no byline and is basically a call for donations by the head of ICOR, ending with their bank info.

None of these sources satisfy the requirements of the GNG or NCORP. Toadspike [Talk] 05:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I believe that the fact that they receive coverage satisfies notability requirements. It's a niche, political topic that isn't going to receive much coverage, especially by Western press, thus I believe that WP:IAR applies in this scenario. I don't think we will find a point of agreement on this, but I think that merging this article into the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany article is worth considering, per my POC below. Castroonthemoon (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Consideration. I believe the article should be kept, but to those in-favor of deletion, I think there's a solid case to be made that the page should be merged with the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany article, given that they seem to be the driving force behind most of the organizations actions and statements, as well as the fact that Stefan Engel (or his wife), the former chairman of MLPD, comes up almost everywhere ICOR does Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge, since these two organizations seem to be unrelated aside from Engel. Toadspike [Talk] 08:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The organization is fundamentally led by the MLPD, in the same way that the Comintern was led by the CPSU Castroonthemoon (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Per above. Castroonthemoon (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck this vote, as you can only cast one bolded vote, and you have already done so above. Please be mindful not to BLUDGEON the discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 19:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. After reviewing the points, I'm going for deletion, as it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm not usually in favor of lateral or downward merges. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's literally no reason not to. That personal preference does not meet the goal of improving Wikipedia. Castroonthemoon (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Weak coverage in reliable sources. Building a hospital in Kobani is awesome, but charity doesn't automatically make an organisation notable. Yue🌙 06:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the fancy name, it gets a mere 2 google news hits. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil Proposed deletions

Funk automotivo (via WP:PROD on 10 May 2025)