Deletion of Raymond A. Watson (2nd nomination)

Comment: So, although the article is almost entirely about Raymond A. Watson, the politician, notability is asserted based on his role as a broadcaster? And the article now passes  because he received "a well-known and significant award or honor" from the California Broadcasters Association, a state lobbying group whose article was created September 18 by the creator of this article? I don't see anything to merit overturning the September 11 decision to delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: easily meets .  Herostratus's arguments seem to be A) he's not done anything notable and B) the sources are local.  My response is that A) our definition of "notable" is  and his coverage clearly rises above that.  And B)  is an essay for a reason.  Perhaps local sources should be treated as having less value toward , but even so the sources here are clearly significant and numerous. Finally, I think there is a serious misreading of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes.  There is no realistic claim he's automatically notable for his position. There is a solid claim he's notable for the coverage.  In fact that's the core of our inclusion guidelines.  Someone really wants "inclusion by deed" rather than by coverage, he likely passes that due to the broadcaster award.  One might say "that's not a significant award" but that, IMO, just shows the slippery slope "inclusion by deed" is.  Instead I believe we should focus on coverage.   is a compromise--a way for us to generally have a ''fairly'' bright line on inclusion.  Now we sometimes override it by local consensus (either to keep or delete), but a pure  argument isn't a good enough reason to ignore this many sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:LOCAL)