Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomás de Aquino Ferreira da Costa


 * 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 21:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Tomás de Aquino Ferreira da Costa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, negligible coverage outside of blogs. Elizium23 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Inclined to Keep. He's a Catholic bishop, albeit an irregular one. There's already one reliable source in the article and another is here. It's difficult to drill down past the blog coverage, which of the "SSPX resistance" is tremendous, but I'm not convinced that it can't be done. It's complicated by the many languages involved.Jahaza (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep although part of a canonically irregular group, he is a Catholic bishop. They are notable under the notability guide for bishops. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * At most Weak keep -- He is not a regular Catholic bishop but only of a splinter denomination. The article indicates he was consecrated only by two bishops, in which case his consecration was canonically irregular: three is the minimum.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Canonically irregular perhaps, but perfectly valid sacramentally. One consecrator is the minimum for validity, the two co-consecrators are just there for a margin of safety. (It's really effective and tends to purify the line of any chance invalidities, but it's totally overkill in normal circumstances.) Elizium23 (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete bishops who are over actual dioceses of the Catholic Church are generally presumed notable, this guy is not over an actual diocese, he does not have leadership of a regular group and so does not fit under that rubric and otherwise the sources are lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes our notability guidelines for bishops. Smartyllama (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.