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 and redirect to 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. Sandstein 20:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIA activities in Brazil[edit]

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

I don't believe that all of the "CIA activities in..." articles should be deleted—in fact, I'm a major contributor to two of the more notable ones, CIA activities in Iraq and CIA activities in Syria—but CIA activities in Brazil (while a closer call than some of the other CIA articles I'm submitting for deletion) seems to fail WP:GNG. The actions of the Johnson administration—including the U.S. embassy, Navy, and CIA—immediately prior to the 1964 Brazilian coup d'état are already covered (with nearly identical prose) in that article. For that reason I support a redirect.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable. The fact that the article is poorly-referenced and written with a point of view doesn't help, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2016 (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.