Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolsonarism

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 was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bolsonarism

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

Article about an ideology related to a brazillian politician. Such article doesn't exist in portuguese and the existance of the ideology itself is dubious. The sources used are not neutral. They are mostly left wing media that criticizes this right wing politician Holy Goo (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete and redirect to Jair Bolsonaro#Political views. Löschen because the content is heavily non-NPOV sources. especially the ridiculous "cult of personality" part: every noisy politician has his claque, so what?. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term is not mentioned in that section because no reliable sources exist for it. If there's at least two reliable sources that can attest to the term's usage, then may be we should consider redirect. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and/or Redirect~~ - I am Brazilian and I assert that this is not a formal term, not even a recurring term. The same should be done with Lulism.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete and no need of redirect. First delete the article because it is promotinion of non notable term based on dubious sources. No decent sources exis for it. Then there's no need for redirect because no evidence of the terms usage (which is different from notability) even in suboptimal sources. Only this wikipedia article and another dictionary definition, which doesn't have relationship with this concept–exist when you search the term. Redirect is meant for termsusagee ery likely to be search based on evidence not just because it is created, let's leave it. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable WP:ADVOCACY page. I don't see a need for a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No redirect becuase Ammarpad demonstrated a lack of plausibility. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.