Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Dixon (USCG)
I would point out that the article is thin on |reliable secondary sources that are |independent of the subject.  Ref 1 is a USCG blog, and presumably reliable, but is connected to the subject, and more akin to a press release than a secondary source.  Ref 2 has the same issues.  Ref 3 is a copy of Ref 4, which is a primary source.  Further, Ref 3 is a fan website, and not necessarily a reliable source.  Ref 5 is a press release from the USCG, and doesn't even mention Dixon.  Ref 6 is a reliable secondary source, but only mentions Dixon in passing.  None of this establishes |notability.  You've got exactly one secondary source that is reliable, that does not discuss the subject of the article.  The boat isn't even afloat (or for that matter, under construction that I can tell).  If this even approaches notability, it is 
— User:GregJackP, 23:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:IS||WP:NN||WP:TOOSOON (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)