Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Brazil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch

Brazil

International Physics and Culture Olympiad


International Physics and Culture Olympiad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I expect this will be less controversial than the other olympiad I nominated... sources give no indication that this meets WP:NEVENT or any similar criteria. Half of the current sources are dead links to primary sources, and the other half are random research papers about education from a decade before this event started. A search for sources in English gives nothing; a search in Portuguese ("Olimpíada Internacional de Física e Cultura") shows some brief articles and primary sources, but nothing anywhere near meeting WP:DEPTH. (They do indicate that this may still be going on, but it's definitely not international in scope, and it's charitable to say the article is currently merely out of date.) LittlePuppers (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

List of UEFA Conference League top scorers


List of UEFA Conference League top scorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails WP:NLIST, should be instead redirected. Yavuz Ben (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The Byzantine - A Novel


The Byzantine - A Novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

LLM output reliant entirely on a student's thesis and an encyclopedia entry (unable to find specific entry, but adjacent entries aren't entirely convincing insofar as being a WP:RS). Could find nothing in terms of reviews, nor much about its supposed translator Ciaran Leonard. Fails WP:NBOOK, and should probably be deleted or redirect to the author's page. /over.throws/✎ 14:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related AfD discussions. /over.throws/✎ 14:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Suspected AI-generated articles. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Your arguments for deletion do not seem very accurate to me. Do you believe a novel praised in a letter by Sir Tom Stoppard is irrelevant? Incidentally, the letter included in the original file was removed by editors for no real reason. As for the claim that the article was AI-generated, simply run it through detection tools and you will see that it was not. Please reconsider your arguments. REVERSOR25 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
    This is a very bizarre argument to make because I looked at your uploaded letter and it's obviously AI-generated. The first version you uploaded is even more obviously AI. (Besides how could Tom Stoppard have read this Portuguese novel in 1986 when the first English translation was published in 2022???) /over.throws/✎ 19:37, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
    The first one was just illustrative with Tom Stoppard's text because I hadn't managed to get the letter and only had the original text, and I wanted to illustrate the article. The second one is already the real letter, as any image detector with legitimacy can confirm; in fact, the only detector that has any legitimacy to do this is Pangram. (https://www.pangram.com/), you can check it there. And, apparently, the book was read by Stoppard in 1986. Besides, I guarantee you asked AI and it presented this discrepancy between the dates because I did it myself. The fact that the book was available in English only in 2022 doesn't mean Stoppard didn't read it in 1986, as the letter confirms. I put the letter on Pangram myself to see if it was real, and it is!REVERSOR25 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
    Setting aside the possibility I'm feeding a troll at the moment (because how could Stoppard have referred to p. 193 of an edition that would not exist for 36 years), it would hardly constitute WP:RS. To return to the argument about notability: as the page stands now, one is a database entry (insignificant), and two refer to theses that treat the author's work as a whole instead of the book as its own. Pereira's paper is good, but Mendonça's treatise is too brief. I would not mind a redirect to the author, but I would not confidently argue that the existing sources are sufficient to keep the article up. /over.throws/✎ 20:57, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
    I’m not a troll. I’m a registered user with a verified email. But I didn't quite understand the point raised about page 193. If the book was released in 1984 and he read it in 1986—whether the author sent it to him or he had the original copy (after all, it seems they were friends and fellow playwrights)—where exactly is the problem? Furthermore, the major reference regarding the novel is Itaú Cultural. Itaú Cultural is Brazil's leading cultural institution, maintained by Latin America's largest bank, Itaú. That said, I don't see much point in the entry being attached to the author's page. If that’s how it has to be—without the book having its own dedicated page—then, depending on the community's decision, it might be better to just delete it. Best regards; I did my best for Wikipedia with this first article. I just hope that with the other articles I intend (or intended) to create, I won't have to go through this again, because it’s disheartening. REVERSOR25 (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
    Neither of those images are a real scan of a letter. Come on now. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
    Run the image through the site https://www.pangram.com/ before accusing it of being fake. It’s easy to come here and spread slander. REVERSOR25 (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
    Give me an hour with Photoshop and I can produce a letter from Tom Stoppard stating that he shot Abraham Lincoln, and pass every AI photo test. Even if we accepted as a notability standard "Tom Stoppard Likes Something," and we don't, the provenance of this letter would have to be provided in detail. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:TNT, nothing here is salvageable whether the article topic is notable or not (I haven't checked). PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
    You didn't check, you don't know what it's about, and yet you're asking for the article to be deleted? Oh, please. Given the number of your nominations currently "on hold"—as evidenced on your page—this nomination strikes me as an act of retaliation rather than something encyclopedic. This isn't a circus... REVERSOR25 (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, this fails NOLLM. The fake letter scans don't exactly add credibility either. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
    Run the image through the site https://www.pangram.com/ before accusing it of being fake. It’s easy to come here and spread slander. REVERSOR25 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
    @REVERSOR25: Please turn down the temperature on your replies here. Calling our arguments slanderous, or making unfounded claims of retaliation, is not helping. It's best we stay on the topic of notability. /over.throws/✎ 00:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
    This was confirmed as AI-generated in Diff/1367865237. There's also the weird conversation in User talk:LexyNight § The Byzantine - A Novel with an user that has been blocked for UPE and edited this article. Putting the notability concerns aside, the integrity of this article is compromised to put it mildly. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. In addition to the obvious LLM problems, I can't find any evidence of coverage for WP:NBOOK. I did some web searching in English and Portuguese (assisted by machine translation) and checked Newspapers.com. It's possible that there were reviews in 1980s Portuguese newspapers that I don't know how to find, but in the absence of such evidence of notability, there's no need to start over after the TNT. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: article creator has been blocked: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sylvio Sant. /over.throws/✎ 01:21, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Yuri (footballer, born 2001)


Yuri (footballer, born 2001) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage on this player. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. 4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete unless convincing sources come up. Flamengo is a major club, but the claim to notability is weak. Geschichte (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep – Good coverage , , and move to Yuri de Oliveira per WP:COMMONNAME. Svartner (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. Clearly no WP:BEFORE performed. Really poor nomination. GiantSnowman 18:17, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - the source number 4 in this discussion seems to be a transfer announcement although it's paywalled. Sources 1, 2, and 3 are transfer announcements too, with what seems to be up to three sentences on the player - not to mention these three sources are all the same publication. C679 15:55, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
    Source 1 is definitely not a transfer announcement, and provides in-depth coverage of the athlete from his time with CR Flamengo's U20 squad. Svartner (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree the sourcing provided is not strong enough to meet GNG. Only source 1 has SIGCOV, and we need at a minimum of two additional sources of that standard. The other three are trivial and do not count towards notability.4meter4 (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cyrobyte (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

2014 FIFA World Cup marketing


2014 FIFA World Cup marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Information Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.
Moved from Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup marketing § Merge with 2014 FIFA World Cup
 – FaviFake (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Merge into 2014 FIFA World Cup

I think this is a possible candidate for merging. It's largely promotional in tone, and similar sporting events don't always have separate pages for their marketing efforts. This seems like it was set up to praise the marketing campaign. Haz215 (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nominator's rationale. Not nearly long enough to justify remaining split. FaviFake (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, and thanks for moving the discussion to the correct place. Haz215 (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Brazil Proposed deletions

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks