Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Trevor Jackson

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 no consensus for Captain Trevor Jackson and Esperance Star with leave to speedy renominate. keep for Simon Mitchell. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Trevor Jackson and related articles[edit]

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

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

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

I am nominating the articles Captain Trevor Jackson and Simon Mitchell for deletion; a pair of wreck divers, whose major "claim to fame" appears to be a dive on the shipwreck believed to be the hospital ship AHS Centaur but later proven (partly by these diver's efforts, but also through other, unrelated efforts) to be the lime freighter MV Kyogle. I am also nominating the article Esperance Star (Jackson's ship).

In all three cases, I can find no reliable, independent sources to support the information in these articles. I also feel that while their dive is relevant to the history of the hospital ship, the people involved do not warrant individual articles for this dive. Even combined with their other actions (as described by their articles) I do not feel that either person meets the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline or more specific notability guidelines (such as Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for Mitchell).

The main source cited for these articles is a Lulu-published book by Jackson; a book co-authored by Mitchell is also cited in his article. The other sources listed in these articles are either authored by Jackson, or related to Centaur and do not mention the divers by name, if at all. A Google News search (all dates) on either diver comes up with results for unrelated people (Jackson, Mitchell). Adding the qualifier "diver" to each search string brings two results for Jackson (both interviews where he is an interviewee) and four for Mitchell (one as a consulted professional in an interview, two about an unrelated search for an engine in a lake, and the fourth behind a paywall but appearing to be a lay-summary of some medical research relating to diving). My searches of Google Books and Scholar bring up no relevant results in Jackson's case and some articles authored by Mitchell. Searches for sources on the ship come up with a couple of passing mentions in amongst the mostly-unrelated Google News results, and not much else. -- saberwyn 12:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 12:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 12:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 12:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments:

The Esperance Star I find utterly nn.

Biographical articles on Jackson and Mitchell purely in relation to the "Centaur dive" would run counter to BLP1E. They may be notable for their other accomplishments, but it is difficult to discern, as the only independent sources provided are in relation to that single event. I am inclined toward deletion in the case of Jackson; withholding judgment on Mitchell as his scholarly publication record at least approaches notability.

I would suggest including OZTek Technical Diver of the Year in the nomination; there is no article for the corporation or the conference which gives the award, and there appears to be very little independent coverage on any of them.

Maralia (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did think about including it in this nomination, but I think that the subject of that article was not closely related enough to these three that including it would stretch the justification for this joint nomination. That said, I have nominated the article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OZTek Technical Diver of the Year). -- saberwyn 12:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Mitchell: Dr Mitchell is an acknowledged expert on diving medicine. He is chair of the diving committee of the Underwater and Hyperbaric Medical Society and co-author of "Lippmann, John; Mitchell, Simon (2005). Deeper into Diving (2nd ed.). Victoria, Australia: J.L. Publications. ISBN 097522901X." - which is probably the definitive text on the physiology of deep diving. A pubmed search for "Mitchell SJ" shows 100 hits. I cannot be certain how many of them refer to this Simon Mitchell, but the following diving-related PMIDs certainly do: 18801958 (J Appl Physiol), 17443579 (Cochrane Database Syst Rev), 17310877 (Aviat Space Environ Med), 12067153 (Undersea Hyperb Med), 11236806 (Clin Pharmacokinet), 10692202 (Ann Emerg Med). That should be more than enough to satisfy criterion 1. Keep. --RexxS (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Mitchell: Keep - Dr. Mitchell is a notable member of the hyperbaric medical community and worthy of a place here. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Jackson: Capt. Jackson is probably notable in his field, as someone who has found 19 shipwrecks. However, we really need a source for that claim. His contribution to the "Centaur" affair is clearly notable, but WP:BLP1E indicates other notable events should be verifiable. I found and cited a news item about him discovering a wreck, but probably needs corroboration or another report to clearly pass WP:NOTE. He writes a regular web column at Dive Oz (the site has Google rank 5), adding somewhat to his notability. Taken all together, it's still borderline, but finding another cite or two in the news would clearly tip the balance, so Weak Keep. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mitchell as clearly notable. I'm not quite as certain of the other two articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, , Dr. Mitchell is clearly remarkable19Hunter68 (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2009 (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.