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

Inquisição

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

Nominating it for having a lack of notable sources, outside alleged coverage of their demo. Not really seeing anything else though they might have made an album in 2014 which that isn't mentioned in this article. GamerPro64 04:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil. GamerPro64 04:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Survived 13 years, but is just a WP:GARAGE band. Svartner (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above CabinetCavers (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jatiúca

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

Tagged for factual errata since 2009; unsourced since 2005. As a neighborhood inside a city this isn't inherently notable under WP:GEOLAND and needs to pass WP:GNG. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Brazil. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not meet WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maceió. Can't find sources. The fact that Portuguese Wikipedia redirects suggests there likely isn't sourcing to support a standalone article. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maceió: Essentially as the nom says, a neighborhood is generally presumed non-notable until proven otherwise. The Portuguese-language Wiki doesn't have an article on the subject. Based on a brief search, as best I can tell, "Jatiúca" may just be a trade name for a particularly ritzy area on the Maceió beach. It doesn't seem to be attached to any particular history or culture (besides some tacky beachside hotel architecture). Pretty views, though, so at least Jatiúca has that going for it. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whake

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

WP:GNG fail. Wooze^★ 13:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell, all of the references are press releases; not seeing any independent coverage to satisfy WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in WP:NSINGER. Svartner (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just a draft, man, it's not a complete article. Synthxd (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the article namespace, so it is not a draft. The term you may be looking for is stub. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Watch again Synthxd (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah it fails WP:NSINGER and it reads like a (rather poor) first stage draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabba550 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not MySpace. Bearian (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as per lack of enough SIGCOV sources to support the subjects notability, at least for the time being, not opposed to possible draftify, if author is able to improve it more.Lorraine Crane (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user:Bearian and the lack of WP being Myspace. Ha! Seriously though fails WP:NSINGER. Iljhgtn (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Chargers game

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

This article has very little information about the game itself, but plenty of information about Mr. Beast and the halftime show, which are not WP:NOTABLE in regards to the game. Assadzadeh (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with @Assadzadeh. Really nothing notable about what happened in the game, along with the fact that we don't make individual articles just because it was an international game. If anything, all of this Mr. Beast stuff really should just be stripped down and put into a couple sentences in Mr. Beast's own Wikipedia article. Red0ctober22 (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run-of-the-mill regular season game which happened to be played in a foreign land (as is the case for several games each year). The few sentences of content regarding MrBeast can be placed in his article if not already included. Frank Anchor 18:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I oppose a redirect. “2025 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Chargers game” is a highly unlikely search term that can also refer to the two teams’ December 14 game in Kansas City. Frank Anchor 03:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep in my opinion, the fact that it was an international game, the second ever to be played in Brazil, and the first ever to be completely free to watch. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's substantial media coverage not just of the game itself (who won/lost), but also of its import as an expansion of the NFL to Brazil. A cursory search turns up examples including the Los Angeles Times, The Athletic, ESPN, the AP, NBA, and The Kansas City Star. As Assadzadeh and Red0ctober22 rightly point out, what happened in the game isn't particularly noteworthy, and is little discussed in the article. But while I agree that more of the action could be added, focusing on the action misses the point: The notability of this game isn't what happened during the four quarters of play, but in how the NFL chose to arrange and promote the match-up as part of an attempt to expand its global reach. Indeed, this wasn't any old mid-season game, or even a team's season opener, but the opening game of the entire NFL season; the NFL was focusing on more than just a face-off between two high-profile teams. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one, the NFL already played a game in Brazil last year, and two, this was the second game of the entire season; the Eagles/Cowboys game the night before was the actual season opener. Red0ctober22 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, Red0ctober22. But the point stands, as a closer look shows that the last two decades of tradition holds that the very first game of the season, the NFL Kickoff, is hosted by the reigning Super Bowl champion. The game in Brazil was thus the second game overall, but the first that could be played while still following the traditional structure. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill regular season game that can be simply merged into the NFL International Games article. 2nd game ever in Brazil and first being free to watch are not worthy of it's own article. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NFL International Series § Brazil or 2025 NFL season § Regular season both of which cover the game as an WP:ATD. The latter is probably preferable to the former as there is more prose. The game itself is WP:MILL. There is a bit of coverage, but I do not find it to meet WP:EVENTCRIT. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 20:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NFL International Series § Brazil as an WP:ATD. But 2025 NFL season § Regular season is also an appropriate target. But I prefer the former as the main notability of the game is that it took place in Brazil. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know why I, as merely the AFC approver, was noticed of this on my talk page, when User:HoodedBeast09 was the first major contributor to the article with an account, but redirecting to NFL International Series would not adequately reflect the fact that this was the first NFL regular season game to be broadcast live on YouTube as a media outlet. This game is highly notable as an NFL marketing exercise in ways that do not neatly fit into any other single article. BD2412 T 01:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does the fact that it was the first game on YouTube really make it notable? Because then you could argue we need an article for the first game Fox ever broadcast in 1994, the first game ever broadcast by Netflix last year on Christmas, etc. Red0ctober22 (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider it notable not for the specific provider, but for the medium. This is like being the first game ever broadcast on television, or broadcast in color, or on a cable channel. I would think, media coverage permitting, we should have articles on all of those milestones. I think that this being the second-ever game played in South America is also a point of notability, as is the viral Mr. Beast promotion. BD2412 T 03:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 You approved this article for mainspace based on the following novel aspects — which I don't agree with:

being played in Brazil — as this was not the first game played in Brazil or South America, nor the only international game played this year, as there were six others, in itself doesn't make it notable.

first NFL game broadcast on YouTube — I agree with Red0ctober22 100%. Could you tell me the articles for the first games broadcast on these other medium?

having a viral MrBeast promo — Why is this notable?
Assadzadeh (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I approved the article based on the breadth of coverage of multiple aspects of the event in reliable sources, which need not be dependent on the specific notability of any single one of those aspects. As for previous medium-entering games, the absence of articles on these does not demonstrate that articles should not exist. The first such game is notable enough to be reported on fifty years after the fact. BD2412 T 04:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, I agree with BD2412. This is a significant game and would be hard to note all of this in a small list in the note section on a Wikipedia page. I believe that there is a lot tied to this game, especially being the first game on YouTube, and the whole viral thing with MrBeast. Even though it's another international game, I believe that it has enough meat in the article along with several reliable sources that it should count as it's own page. HoodedBeast 21:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not convinced that this passes WP:NEVENT. Most of the coverage is WP:MILL and does not establish why it is more notable than any other regular season NFL games. Content on MrBeast's involvement can be covered at his own article. I don't support a redirect either as this is not a likely search term on its own. MidnightMayhem (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NFL International Series § Brazil per WP:ROUTINE. I mean, it's not the first Brazil game and nothing controversial happened that changed the game. Anything else can be a blurb or trivia to the season article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crufty trivia which is lightyears away from being a historical game. A historical game would be a game that is talked about in the year 2055. Oppose a redirect. Geschichte (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not exactly sure what’s so important to justify this article. The article's name implies that it’s about the game, but instead it focuses on other things not related to it. Being the first game broadcast on YouTube isn’t particularly significant, as games nowadays get streamed all the time, but we don’t have articles about those (Heck, I even see some games streamed on TikTok!). And I really don’t understand the whole Mr. Beast viral thing. Nobody's talking about that anymore, so can you really call it viral if it was talked about for only a week? Perhaps someone can provide a more compelling explanation for retaining this article, but I don't see it at the moment. WikiGiancarloC2 (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the international series as listed seems fine. This isn't the Miracle on Ice or the 1968 Mets, long way from a notable game. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally lacking in sustained coverage and it is an extremely unlikely search target. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Nazareth F. da Silva

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

Does not seem to meet notability standards. The listed sources seem to establish the accomplishments without justifying the notability/impact of the accomplishments. The page itself certainly does not make any case for notability. --Vinceren (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vinceren (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - da Silva's work is cited through the years, but I have not been able to find any additional information about the impact of her work, nor can I find biographical details. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she passes WP:NPROF. I agree that the information is sparse, but for a relatively low citation field with her GS record and species identified I view her as a definite pass. The page is bad, and I tagged it for rewriting. Another problem is that it is not correctly tagged for projects where experts may help to rewrite. I will hold off on doing that for the moment until there is more consensus here (but others can do that).Ldm1954 (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Ldm1954 as she seems to be widely cited in journals on google books and scholar/has authored 23 taxon names. I think it would be helpful for more projects to be tagged so that those with knowledge in the area can support the rewriting. SDGB1217 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF criteria #1 - over 2,300 citations. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil Proposed deletions

Dino Aventuras (via WP:PROD on 20 September 2025)