Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Martins Ribeiro Nunes

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 keep. Tone 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

José Martins Ribeiro Nunes[edit]

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

Insignificant coverage of novelty story about Portuguese pilot, does not meet more than trivial coverage per Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Sadads (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not encyclopaedically notable. The sources are not enough to pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; notability is lacking. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Zwilson14 (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, keep. I disagree that the coverage is trivial; from these sources, I'd say there's enough to build an article:[1],[2],[3]. There's further coverage in these two [4],[5], which aren't reliable sources, but show how much attention he has received; the first includes video footage from what appears to be a TV news channel, and the second mentions he has been awarded the 'Medalha Almirante Tramandaré', 'one of the highest honors awarded by the Navy of Brazil'. I think that's enough to pass our guidelines. Robofish (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of significant notability. Ronk01 talk 02:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Robofish, reliable sources and significant coverage, passes WP:GNG. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independent reliable sources with significant coverage were in the article before it was nominated, including a 2000-word article about the subject in Germany's leading news magazine. I find it very difficult to understand how five editors managed to come to the conclusion that this coverage is trivial. Or is there something about maritime pilots that makes them inherently unnotable whatever the sources say? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2011 (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.