Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Mathieson, Polar Explorer

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, though badly needs to be improved.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Mathieson, Polar Explorer‎

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

Fails WP:BIO. VanguardScot 12:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this article contains sufficient third party references to validate the subjects own website content, which is listed as a source, so should remain within Wikipedia. Shipsview (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Note: Source website was deleted by a Wiki Admin. It can be found here: http://mathiesonexplorer.com/ Shipsview (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia doesn't allow primary sources. See WP:PS. Craig Matheson still fails WP:BIO. VanguardScot 18:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess we have differing PoVs, and need third party involvement. Shipsview (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The person has not received a well-known and significant award or honour, nor has been nominated for one several times. The person has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Therefore he fails WP:BIO (please read the page as you don't seem to have done so) and does not merit an article on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia allowed an article about every obscure person who was written about once on the BBC website, there would be far to many articles and it would devalue Wikipedia as a brand. VanguardScot 11:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment -- I see no problem in principle over sourcing. Blogs are discouraged as WP:RS, but the one cited here is effectively the same as a press release by RSGS. My greater concern is whether his achievements are sufficient to make him notable; and on that I am not sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in the (mainly Scottish) media, covering multiple events. In addition to sources currently in article, Glasgow Herald[1], Accountancy[2], STV[3], Times Education Supplement (interview)[4], Cumberland & Westmoreland Herald[5], Falkirk Herald[6], (Scottish) Sun[7], other BBC coverage[8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colapeninsula (talk • contribs) 17:11, 15 January 2014
Keep Colapeninsula's sources and existing ones in the article shows subject is covered in reliable sources and passes WP:GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC per sources in the article and those listed above by User:Colapeninsula. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:59, 22 January 2014 (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.