Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Hobit, 14:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:LOCAL (Wikipedia:Notability)