Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Crean

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. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 08:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Crean

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

This is a close one. There is some coverage or at least mention of his disappearance and the finding of his body two years later [1][2][3] but it's a little superficial and borderline WP:NOTNEWS. This obituary [4] has a bit more depth although its content does not really match the focus of our article. So: is this just about good enough for WP:GNG or should we delete this? Pichpich (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep. Well reported at the time, but prior to WWW and news on line - so google and others are mostly blind to it. Still referred to 10 and 20 and 30 years later as a reference event. See right. If I get the chance I might rewrite and fully reference myself tomorrow. Aoziwe (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

references including news at the time
17 years later - http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/16/1034561213053.html 28 years later - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/how-does-a-bushwalker-go-missing-never-to-be-found/news-story/8a784ed4e5594e7a74576455b015a1ab https://books.google.com.au/books?id=fJAPTvn5sP0C&pg=PT132&lpg=PT132&dq=stephen+crean&source=bl&ots=MU5bdd51lk&sig=KNWbvG9_XqFM_Zll3lXNArSmXdk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC6aTx4P3QAhVGKJQKHYAlANE4FBDoAQg-MAg#v=onepage&q=stephen%20crean&f=false 29 years later - http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canadian-hiker-prabhdeep-srawn-still-missing-a-year-after-kosciuszko-disappearance-20140515-zrduo.html 30 years later - https://52adventuresblog.com/tag/best-walk-in-the-snowy-mountains/ 14 years later - https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/119677799/ 28 years later - http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/letters/walker-invited-danger-20130603-2nm16.html 12 years later - http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1659872_1659465_1659442-2,00.html http://read.schoollibrary.com/articles/eng/Frank_Crean http://www.worldebooklibrary.net/article.aspx?lang=eng&title=simon_crean http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/119476797 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/119477022 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/118117279 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/127539959 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122522885 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/119477022 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/119476582 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122521919 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/119476409 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122521908 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122521316 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122521785 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122521479 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122521720 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/119476797 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/118117279 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122522387

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently has significant coverage. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done an almost complete rewrite with full in line referencing - so I believe a definite definite keep Aoziwe (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Aoziwe and clear demonstration of broad coverage and lasting significance. TimothyJosephWood 16:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to the additional work - I think the nomination was fair, based on the article at the time - sometimes AFD provides the incentive to improve an article - Arjayay (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2016 (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.