Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abel Douglass

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Douglass[edit]

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

Apart from apparently being a pretty good whaler, there isn't anything that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", the plain English version of notability. Also, everything since 2007 seems to have been maintenance updates. Nobody seems to care enough even to write a decent first sentence. ospalh (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article states that his company had the best record for whaling in a ten year period, and that he was a central figure in an international dispute between the U.S. and Canada. There is a lengthy list of references, some of which, such as the David Starr Jordan book, appear very solid. We don't delete an article on a notable topic because the article has weaknesses, or because the original author lost interest. Instead, we improve such an article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject of the article appears to be mentioned multiple times, with at least one mention being significant, even if the source is over a century old at the time of this AfD. Therefore it can be argued that the subject passes WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 22:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and hopefully clean up. Google Book search turns up a number of books that discuss him, I think there is a pretty good argument that he passes WP:BIO. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2011 (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.