Deletion of Brian Armstrong (diver) (2nd nomination)

Comment: On Wikipedia the concept of notability depends on a subject being brought to the public's attention by independent sources. There are examples of these in the article. In 2010 The Learning Channel produced a documentary called "Return To The Bermuda Triangle" where the producers of the documentary interviewed Armstrong and filmed him diving over four days for a section of that documentary. A similar, if less prominent example, is the History Channel's show Mega Movers on the recovery of a B-52 bomber from a depth of 150 feet which featured Armstrong. We seem to have lost the online ABC news coverage of Armstrong's search for Gertrude Tompkins Silver, but I assume in good faith that the coverage existed at the time the article was written. The Rubicon Foundation maintains probably the largest collection of medical information concerned with diving, aerospace and space. To have been a founder board member of that organisation was a notable event at the time, and although it seems that Armstrong has now stepped down to an advisory capacity, we maintain a policy that |notability is not temporary. Scuba diving is a niche activity and we don't expect much coverage even for prominent figures in the field, but when we can point to multiple instances of an individual actually attracting some public attention, we ought to be able to sustain a Wikipedia article on that subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: reminding people that AfD is not a !vote. Simply saying "subject is notable" is insufficient. '''The subject of this article has not received significant coverage in reliable sources.''' He has not been the subject of a single article or even a Q&A, or even a 90-second story on the local news. Armstrong himself was not the subject of any documentary, but was interviewed along with many others, about the dive they had been on. That is not significant coverage; which is defined at  as  ''addressing the topic directly and in detail''. That means that he himself would be the subject of the coverage, which he was not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I'm just not seeing it.  The sources I'm looking at are either primary, fleeting mentions, or fails  by a country mile.  What I'm NOT seeing is the "significant coverage" ''about the subject'' that the GNG requires.  By the way, folks, quotes BY a subject explicitly can't be used to support the notability OF a subject, so whether TLC interviewed him regarding the Bermuda Triangle doesn't matter bupkis.  They didn't interview Armstrong about ''himself,'' did they? ''' ''Nha Trang
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IRS)

Comment: No consensus" is indeed not the same as "keep", but it's also not the same as a |NPASR close; NPASR wasn't invoked (and almost certainly shouldn't have been invoked) by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion process (WP:NPASR)