This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to South America. 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. 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|South America|~~~~}} 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 South America. 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 Americas.

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/South America/archive

Katherina Roshana (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)

Fails WP:BLP1E. Only known for winning a beauty pageant.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, South America, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with the nom that this subject does not appear to have the lasting notability and is a WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given this article's inclusion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexi Wilson, Soft Deletion is not possible for this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: There's an essay WP:NBEAUTY which states that winners of national-level pageants which select participants for the Big Four pageants are generally presumed to be notable. There is a caveat on the page that it's an essay and not a policy or guideline. I think this should be clarified as if this is not a well-established guideline by consensus, I'd vote to delete this article because while there is coverage of the subject winning the pageant, it is a one event situation as noted by the previous two editors. If notability is conferred by winning a national level beauty pageant that qualifies the subject for one of the Big Four international beauty pageants, then I'd vote to keep. Nnev66 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Puleio (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)

After a review and a search I cannot find any independent and reliable WP:SIGCOV of this footballer for a WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT pass. If you find any, please ping me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Montenegro, and Argentina. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Seems to fail WP:GNG. A bit surprising, I must admit, but I can't find anything either. Anwegmann (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ximena Caminos (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)

Following brief discussion on the talk page, in which an editor drafted a new version of the article, it makes more sense to delete this article and for active contributors to create something in draftspace in due course. In its current form, it resembles a CV or promotional piece more than an encyclopedia article. The subject is mentioned in reliable sources but, again, too promotional to establish notability. Northernhenge (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northernhenge (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Argentina. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is nothing in the body of this stubbed-down version of the article that establishes general notability because there is nothing in the remaining text that refers to significant coverage. It has not been necessary to check the sources, because there is nothing that needs to be verified. There is also a draft. I have not yet reviewed the draft, but it seems better to delete this stub first and deal with the draft in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there have been some recent additions to this article that need to be assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage I can find of her in independent sources rises to level of multiple examples of significant coverage imo:

Guardian article^[1] which is mostly about her Reef Line project but she is quoted throughout

NYT Q&A^[2] with her which is quite detailed

Vogue piece^[3] is about her *and* her (ex?)husband, but it could be argued sigcov.

NYT mention^[4] also about Reef Line, she + her project has a two paragraph write-up

InsomniaOpossum (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC) InsomniaOpossum (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um Natal Rastônico (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)

Fails WP:NFILM. No reviews, no awards, and insufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Junbeesh (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Brazil, and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lack secondary sources or reviews and the cast do not appear to be notable actors. It fails WP:NFILM. Mekomo (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The film has a significant online engagement following on YouTube and Brasil Paralelo's streaming platform (considered the 2nd biggest in Brazil). The main star (Rasta) is a famous comedian in Brazil. About "insufficient secondary sources", Wikipedia’s guidelines allow for the use of reliable non-traditional sources. Local coverage by producer companies can - as it has in similar articles - bolster the case. I agree that there are not too many sources, but leaving the short film stub seems more than enough for this matter, as it has done in many previous articles of films (some of them with little to no online engagement at all). Examples: De la coupe aux lèvres, Lel Chamel, Khouya, Cake Day, Charlie Ve'hetzi, Une Visite, En rachâchant, Keep_Not_Silent, and many others. And it's okay, because niche films and artistic projects are often retained if they contribute to a specific cultural or artistic discourse, or if they had a relevant online presence. So even if this film doesn’t meet WP:NFILM fully, it does meet the broader standards for WP:NOTABILITY. Daniel Ben Levi (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daniel Ben Levi YouTube views or viewership from other platforms do not count. Also, notability is not WP:INHERITED. If an article is a stub and does not have the potential to be expanded in the future, it generally should not have a dedicated article. Junbeesh (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Ferreira (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 and independent coverage, far from meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Singapore, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG, as you can see [1]. Svartner (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the above database link was correct and the player only played seven games in Singapore in his entire career, then I struggle to even work out how the page creator found the player to make an article in the first place. His own coaching profile claims that Ferreira played in Spain's Segunda División B for the reasonably sized CP Cacereño, [2] but there is no record on the highly comprehensive BDFutbol, so even that modest claim is doubtful. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT) criteria. Non-notable career ([3]) with only 7 matches for 518 minutes playing time. QEnigma talk 05:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Louzada (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)

Promotional biography of a non-notable banker. Sources are mostly brief (WP:TRIVIALMENTION/WP:INTERVIEW) quotes in news outlets ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]). There are also some sources that don't mention him at all ([11], [12], [13], [14]) and a pay-to-play WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interview. Nothing in WP:BEFORE search indicates notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Brazil. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – In a Google search I only found his social networks and his personal website. No WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian phonk (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)

Expired then contested PROD. Concern was: The article's text is overly promotional and almost all claims failed verification from cited sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Brazil. UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Phonk#Subgenres – As WP:ATD. The rhythm is not notable for its own article, but it can be mentioned in the aforementioned section. Svartner (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or soft redirect to wikt:Brazilian phonk. Phonk editors rejected it within the subgenre section. It will probably never be there. Maybe in Funk carioca. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Candiotto (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)

Disputed PROD. Fails notability criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Brazil. Shrug02 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I see WP:SIGCOV in the sources already presented (Globoesporte, Gazeta Esportiva, O Tempo), the player herself is not very famous but meets the criteria for the article. A quick Google search also turns up a lot of content. Svartner (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is coverage of both her singles and doubles career on several major Brazilian sports portals: [15] [16] [17] Svartner (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Svartner. Article needs a lot of work on subjective language. There have been several PRODS and AI generated tags put on its creator's other articles this week.Canary757 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I accept coverage has now been found but I stand by the point that she is non-notable and the article itself is like a fan page full of Peacocking and puff and very little by way of actual facts. Shrug02 (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I've made a tentative start to address the peacock tag Shrug02, will do a thorough one later.Canary757 (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No articles are proposed for deletion at this time

2025 Antioquia Cessna 402C crash (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. No sign of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle, no reason to expect WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Colombia. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per above. No sign of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and no lasting effects. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – As per what the multiple issues template said in the article, it doesn't meet the notability for events. The article also contains close paraphrasing of aviacionline.com/fatal-cessna-402-accident-details-of-the-crash-in-urrao-colombia?utm_source=chatgpt.com, and most importantly, the accident relates to general aviation, of which general aviation accidents are run-of-the-mill. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 12:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 12:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Given the existence of the "?utm_source=chatgpt.com" it suggests the article may have been written using AI. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Maybe I do not have enough experience yet, but both the general notability guideline and the one specific to events seem too vague for me to be able to reach a conclusion. What does the duration of coverage mean? On the article about Turkish Airlines Flight 981 (which I think every one would agree is notable) all the sources are either created shortly after the accident or are parts of the databases that mention every incident/accident including the 2025 Cessna. Some no-survivor crashes of similar-sized aircraft are labelled with lack of notability templates (see Thai Flying Service Flight 209 or 2024 Orbic Air Eurocopter EC130 crash) while others enjoy a free life on Wikipedia (see 2024 Gillette Pilatus PC-12 crash or 2023 Rio Branco Cessna Grand Caravan crash). I know that I should not mention other articles in this discussion but it seems to me that as long as there is no rule to call a crash notable iff there are at least N (let us say, 15) fatalities (or other extraordinary reason), we will be stuck in these discussions forever.212.221.45.21 (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On the article about Turkish Airlines Flight 981 (which I think every one would agree is notable) all the sources are either created shortly after the accident or are parts of the databases that mention every incident/accident including the 2025 Cessna.

  • I've already located more than 10 sources in the article that were published after March 1974, and even more while searching around.

  Some no-survivor crashes of similar-sized aircraft are labelled with lack of notability templates (see Thai Flying Service Flight 209 or 2024 Orbic Air Eurocopter EC130 crash) while others enjoy a free life on Wikipedia (see 2024 Gillette Pilatus PC-12 crash or 2023 Rio Branco Cessna Grand Caravan crash).

  • Simply because it wasn't tagged doesn't necessarily mean they "enjoy a free life". It's just that either there's evidence that it's notable or nobody bothered to place the notability template on either article.

  I know that I should not mention other articles in this discussion but it seems to me that as long as there is no rule to call a crash notable iff there are at least N (let us say, 15) fatalities (or other extraordinary reason), we will be stuck in these discussions forever.

  • The problem with this proposal is that it is basically saying that "regardless of whether or not an event meets WP:GNG or meets WP:NEVENT, an event is automatically notable if it receives a minimum amount of casualties," even though that is not how notability is established. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

nah, dont delete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndoMaja (talk • contribs) 11:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robin del Castillo (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)

Fails WP:SINGER. His supposed international tour has been unsourced for years, and he clearly doesn't pass GNG. Badbluebus (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Latin America, and Colombia. Badbluebus (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - moving from one country to another is not an "international tour." Bearian (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been at AFD before so is not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbert Fernandez (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)

The single source provided is a passing mention. Unable to locate any sources which discuss this subject in detail. Lacks sufficient notability. C679 07:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Venezuela. C679 07:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 07:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Blatantly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]