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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will Wagstaff[edit]

Will Wagstaff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Having visited the Isles of Scilly on 3 occasions, it became apparent that Will Wagstaff has had an important impact on the islands and has carried out a lot of successful work regarding wildlife. I believe that he does have 'celebrity' status on the islands. edwardchelski 18:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. (I'm the one that tagged this for speedy.) The author has given no credible evidence - indeed, no evidence at all other than the subject's web site - to back up his assertion of notability. The assertion itself is paper thin at best, and frankly I think the decline of a speedy delete is in error. But at least the editor who declined speedy had the courtesy to start this AfD discussion, so props for that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Island Wildlife Tours' is a big thing on the Isles of Scilly, and Wagstaff not only leads it, but he owns the company. He has a number of notable positions. He is also an author - his guidebook is on Amazon.co.uk. He appears on various media. I have added more to the page in the hope that this might make the claim more than 'paper thin'. I still say keep. edwardchelski 11:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The additional references are of little use. They are mere listings of guides for particular companies and are promotional, much life the original reference. Another references another Wikipedia article, which is not allowed. The last one does not even mention Wagstaff at all, and is therefore useless. A regular appearance on a single radio station is not sufficient for notability — if it were, I myself would be notable. Still clearly fails to meet our notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, i surrender. This was a genuine attempt that turned into a desperate attempt. You're probably right, I apologise for wasting your time. Delete. edwardchelski 15:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. He's president of the area's bird group, he's a writer, he's a leading naturalist...what more do you want? If that's not enough, even the laziest editor can find dozens more reliable sources on Google. Please do at least the barest research before nominating (or voting) for a deletion. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I found little of relevance that wasn't something that simply promoted him. If "president of the area's bird group" was enough to meet notability standards, there would be about 100,000 people that met that standard. Why don't you post links to some of these "dozens" of references that you found on Google to prove what you say? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man--you know that his status vis-à-vis the bird club is not his sole claim to notability. As for sources... Since there is no policy saying "you must have more than X number of sources to establish notability", I maintain that one or two would suffice, as long as they're reliable. There are currently seven sources, and that's only from looking through the first couple pages of search results. I'd be happy to dig through the remaining 19 pages of results, but why should I waste my time--if the existing seven aren't enough, then why should I think others will satisfy you? What, in your mind, is a sufficient number of sources? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you enclose "Will Wagstaff" in quotes, you get nowhere near the number of Google hits you claim for this particular Will Wagstaff, so you either don't know how to do a proper Google search for someone's name, or you're just making up numbers. I already picked apart the refs presented in my comments earlier in this thread. The majority of the Google hits I found are mere listings of radio programs, or of tours or some such. All but one or two are trivial mentions or promotional material. There's no straw man here - I merely did not address the entirety of your argument. Mr. Wagstaff is a minor personality in a small area, and does not meet notability standards, nor would he pass WP:SNOW. (By the way, Mr. McKnight, please refrain from snarky remarks such as "laziest editor" and the like. It is not welcome here.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said, a search for "Will Wagstaff"--in quotes--yields 19 pages of results (that's over 2000 hits), as you can see for yourself, here. You are correct that some of cited sources are promotional, and I'll add that some of the cited sources are broken links, which should be removed. Still, there are a couple informational pages cited and likely more in the Google results, which will take some time for myself (or you, if you're so inclined) to properly inspect. Yes, Wagstaff is a regional personality, but he happens to be a notable regional personality. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! -edwardchelski 13:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He seems notable enough, albeit locally, as a naturalist and broadcaster, as well as being a travel writer. Maias (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are now a dozen or so references, though the article still requires the attention of a Scilly Islands devotee who's willing to put some work into fleshing it out. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I still can't help but notice that all but two of the references now listed are not suitable either because they mention Wagstaff only in passing, or they are profiles listed on the sites of companies for which he works, or both. Morover, some of the refs are duplicates, or nearly so. I still sum up Wagstaff thusly: He is noted only within a very small field and small geographic areas, and is a local radio personality. He's a tour guide and has authired one book which Amazon sees fit to list. But there is very little non-promotional, independent material given that really tells anything of consequence about him. It's not a cut-and-dried situation where X number of references is enough. It's just that there is very little there there, to borrow a phrase. Is a local figure of limited notability even within the very small area such as the Isles notable enough for inclusion here? I just don't think so. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quip I think there's enough there there, and if you look here and there, you'll find more there there than you thing there is. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:15, 1 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.