Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio
Without comment on this article, the above discussion based on the content of  appears to have missed some key facts.  The quote from  given by the nominator was from a short-lived version that was reverted fairly quickly because the change (introducing the word 'significant') did not have consensus.  Also, the inclusion of 'third-party' in the sentence has been disputed by a number of commenters on WT:V (myself included), and I am uncomfortable with the claim that ''that'' has consensus either.  , of course, continues to require significant coverage in third-party sources as it always has, but as Necrothesp points out, we can choose to ignore such guidelines if they tell us to delete an article that common sense indicates we should keep
— User:JulesH, 09:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:V||WP:N (Wikipedia:Verifiability)