Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hendrik Coetzee


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn by proposer. WWGB (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hendrik Coetzee

 * – ( View AfD View log )

*Delete. The unfortunate Mr Coetzee was unknown until his tragic death. This article is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. Further research by Nevard (see below) has demonstrated notability, albeit under a slightly different name. WWGB (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Presumed death (no body) by crocodile does not an encyclopaedic article make. Concur with WWGB - 220.101 talk\Contribs 14:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, WP:NOTNEWS. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, all said already. Ekem (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article easily passes the notability threshold. First, it uses 10 reliable sources from the press to demonstrate notability. Second, the press demonstrates his notability for several of his actions, including being an author and for leading expeditions that had never been accomplished previously. Third, the guideline Notability (people) states,"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." which this man clearly does. Note the use of British, Indian, Australian and American news sources. The reliable sources that have been cited come from no shortage of international press sources in a very non-routine, very significant way. Based on the above, it is clear that this man is notable. Basket of Puppies  17:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as it is clear that WP:GNG provides that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." WWGB (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment If I saw any proof to the statement, made several times in 2010, that he "gained prominence in 2004 after leading the first-ever Nile River source-to-sea expedition", I'd say he was notable for more than getting eaten by a crocodile. The problem is that I don't see that he gained prominence in 2004 .  Mandsford 21:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find the argument of  Basket of Puppies  to be thoroughly convincing.  Yes, perhaps without the manner in which he died he would not be notable, but he did die that way and that has made him and his life (not just his death) notable.  I mean, most people are notable for only one thing - that is, without that one thing they would not be notable (like Bill Gates founding Microsoft, Lance Armstrong being a bike racer, etc.)   But being notable for those single notable things makes the rest of their lives, which would otherwise not be notable, notable.  So it is in this case. Our job is not to decide if the topic is notable.  Our job is to ascertain whether reliable secondary sources have decided the topic is notable.  Clearly that is the case here.   --Born2cycle (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is newsworthy as per the dozen or so sources and unusual in that not many westerners would carry out a trek like this. Richard Francis Burton springs to mind. Would we ignore him? Nasnema   Chat  00:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is my first attempt at modifying a Wikipedia page, but I am compelled to try because I feel strongly that Hendrik Coetzee was a sufficiently notable person to warrant a biographical Wikipedia page.  It is unfortunate that the page did not appear until his death, because if the right people were aware of his achievements, I'm sure that he would've had a Wikipedia entry long ago.  Ironically, he IS already mentioned on at least one other Wikipedia page; for becoming the first to navigate the remote source of the Nile river 1.  According to a tribute on the Fluid Kayak website (one of his sponsors) 2, Hendrik did a source-to-sea kayak trip of the longest river in the world, kayaked the major part of the Congo River solo, and paddled the Murchison section of the Nile solo in two days: "a feat that is unlikely to ever be met."  I believe that the main reason he was never on the wikipedia radar before, was because he was a humble and down-to-earth guy, and was not a self-promoter.   --Purplesmoo  01:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * — User:Purplesmoo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google News archive searches give further results for Hendri Coetzee, a nickname. That said, coverage in the news archive is far from complete for S.A. sources- site searches for '.za' can help. Nevard (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. The guy is notable, just because he is notable does not mean the article should be kept. Surely wikipedia should be ultimately about growth - can we not put more effort into building instead of destroying articles? It should need very hard justification to delete this article. Imagine all the articles that should exist but don't just because it was a fews opinion to get rid when others who don't would not come on here to comment but may well look for info at a later date. Rant over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.168.168 (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.