Deletion of 1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (2nd nomination)

Comment: lack of evidence of  and lack of sources available to verify the information are the main issues here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Article meets  and  for keeping a list. 1989 is a major milestone year in the Cold War. &nbsp;&nbsp;//&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:CLN||WP:AOAL)

Comment: per : "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists" (updating my !vote above regarding a new reason, no intention to double vote). This is a list of components of a notable organisation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NNC)

Comment: per PMC, , and . Of course 1989 is a significant year in the history of the Cold War; that is not in dispute. However, |notability is not inherited: not everything that happened in 1989, even if directly related to the Cold War, is notable as a result. We aren't seeing publishers single out 1989 as a particularly notable year to release orders of battle; unfortunately a passing mention in a almanac-type publication and a self-published website, even one by a few military buffs, are not enough evidence that this particular armed forces in this particular year deserves an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE||WP:MILL||WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: I must emphasize here that while the in-line citations for the Portuguese Army section do not specifically mention '''1989''', the sources for that section are (a) multiple, (b) independent - anyone who cares to look will see the websites are not official (take a look at the website authors at https://www.operacional.pt/quem-somos/!! they're military enthusiasts, "buffs") - and (c) reliable (Thomas & Volstad, ''NATO Armies Today,'' 1987). If the multiple, independent, and reliable threshold is met, it meets . Thus this nomination is perfectly valid for the naval and air force sections, but does '''not''' disprove the GNG for the army for the mid-1980s
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: largely unreferenced and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS that satisfies . I do not believe that an order of battle serves any purposes without a battle and don't accept that 1989 is any more significant than any other year during to Cold War such as 1956, 1961, 1968 or 1983
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: via  and , sources exist. Year is relevant. Detailed list need an immense amount of work, so deletion is the wrong course of action. Help to expand and source is the way to go as
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:CLN||WP:AOAL)

Comment: Based on my review, this isn't a notable enough subject for an article. None of the sourcing in the article specifically talks about 1989, and this appears to fail  and possibly  as well. Note I found out about this article from DRV and took a look at it from a neutral point of view, and will not be watching this discussion, and if on topic sources are found, a request to the closer to downweight my vote properly
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:OR)