Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fernando Pereira

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 no consensus. This debate was re-listed twice and failed to gain anymore discussion after the second re-list - no consensus. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 21:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Pereira[edit]

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

WP:BIO1E. Known only for being involved in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, and all content is about this. Should be covered there, if at all. Sandstein 20:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of source spread across multiple countries, decades and languages. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But this does not address the problem that the sources are all about one event, the Rainbow Warrior sinking, which should lead us to cover this person in the context of that article. Sandstein 08:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E has three required conditions, the third is not met. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough to meet notability NealeFamily (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps as he seems best connected to that, perhaps still questionable for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep household name in NZ, notable in his own right. MurielMary (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and then redirect as there is not much to merge (or plain simple redirect). The current article is all about the Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, not about Fernando Pereira. The very little information about him fits perfectly well in the other article. - Nabla (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 16 May 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.