Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason De Carteret (2nd nomination)


 * 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) 08:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Jason De Carteret
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is nothing here to show the notability of the subject. The one reference given talks of a failed exploration attempt. Egghead06 (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  09:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. The nominator seems to have removed a couple of dead references from the article just before nominating it - it might have been preferable to simply have marked them as deadlinks and left them in, in case the rest of us could find them archived somewhere. Though having said that, there was just enough detail in the references before the nominator deleted them that I am not sure that they would have been deemed reliable by current standards even when the pages were live. Also, I note that while the article easily survived AfD back in 2008, we can't see the article as it was then because of WP:COPYVIO problems identified in 2010 - is any kind admin in a position to tell us whether there were further references in the article then? (Or are we just dealing with changing notability standards?) PWilkinson (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've restored the deadlinks for any editors to make their own mind up.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I've resuscitated the links (best not to delete dead links in the first place). No opinion on the article. Thincat (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'll go with keep. He has just married a wikinotable so there's been some more biographical information. I know some people disregard sources that publish about someone only because they have a notable relative but I don't think we should be judging journalists' motivations. I've added something.Thincat (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment See also WP:INHERITED and WP:BLPSOURCES - I've remove the tabloid refs.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - the BBC article and a few others not cited in the article, such as this, clinch it for me. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 17:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:BASIC:, , , . North America1000 06:29, 12 December 2015 (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.