Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Willcox

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. Michig (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Willcox

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

Greenpeace ship captain. Fails WP:BLP, WP:V. Biographical article about a living person with no references, and it's not up to me to look for them. Very likely notable, though, so should be kept if sources are found for most of the content. Sandstein 20:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep per http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/12/observer-ethical-awards-winners-peter-willcox http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/pete-willcox-high-seas-avenger-20140324 and many more refs not in the current article. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/peter-willcox-arrest-greenpeace_n_4003685.html definately meets GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very good and all, but unless the actual content in the actual article is footnoted with these sources, it is still unverifiable for the reader and must be deleted per WP:BLP. Sandstein 08:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Okay. The content has been added to the footnotes section. It is now verifiable to the reader and meets the (archaic) WP:BLP definition. Let's close this AfD and keep the article. CerealKillerYum (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep As the article does not meet the criteria of WP:BLPPROD due to its age (June 2006 creation), I fail to see how WP:BLP can be an AfD criterion. Schwede 66 17:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets notability - needs more referencing though NealeFamily (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as he could also be redirected to Greenpeace since it seems he's best connected to that, the current article is still overall questionable for solidity. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer – See WP:NEXIST and WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Comfortably passes WP:BASIC: [1],[2], [3], [4], [5], etc. Many more sources about the subject exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Hi Sandstein, your statement as part of the nomination "with no references, and it's not up to me to look for them." may be misleading especially for new editors, as doesn't WP:BEFORE apply to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion ie. B. Carry out these checks 2.If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.) D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability .... ? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:BEFORE" is neither guideline nor policy; it has no authority. WP:BURDEN is policy. If people want to keep content, it is up to them to find sources and add them to the article. Sandstein 12:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry and thanks Sandstein, maybe such a statement/note needs to be made at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page under the heading 'Before nominating: checks and alternatives' to make it clear. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Some sources have been added; the article is not an unsourced BLP at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 10 May 2016 (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.