Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduardo Recife

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. (non-admin closure) — Amkgp 💬 17:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Recife

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article is completely unreferenced and I can't find any reliable significant coverage. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (medium-ish). Google books has lots of coverage (example), and he has been mentioned in books by important design folks like the Smithsonian's Ellen Lupton. Possibly (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interview in Juxtapoz magazine, and coverage in a book on illustration. He is included in this book on Brazilian design by the Museum of Modern Art, Sao Paolo. Let's also remember that there may also be sources in Portugese.Possibly (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Judging by this WP:PRIMARY source, we should expect a GNG pass because it looks like he has arguments under WP:NARTIST 4 b) and 4 d). Turning directly to GNG, here are some independent and in-depth Portuguese or Spanish RS that others might have missed: 1, 2, and two that are not very in-depth but give indirect evidence of his notability, 3 and 4. This is on top of a bunch of coverage of his books, some of which was given above, which gives further credence to the signs for an NAUTHOR argument too even if the NARTIST direction isn't sufficient. Note that I have just included Portuguese or Spanish sources; there are lots more English sources but I assume others can find those. Some of these sources directly attest to his notability (a good sign for, say, NARTIST 1), with for example the Hoje em Dia article calling him "bastante procurado" — really sought-after. This article needs better sourcing but in terms of notability it is a comfortable keep. - Astrophobe (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2021 (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.