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 Move to draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard May (environmental advocate)[edit]

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

Blatant self promotion, no indication of meeting any bio guideline John from Idegon (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I certainly am convinced that Mr. May was doing god's work, I am having trouble finding significant coverage of him personally at Google News or Books. Most news appearances appear to quote him as the president of CalTrout, but the significant coverage of he himself appears to be hard to find. Here are some refs I found: [1], blog, [2][3][4], brief coverage of him, brief quoting of him, brief mention of him, erection of monument to May. I'm not !voting just yet, because there could be significant coverage elsewhere that perhaps Troutfella could point us to. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expandingon one of Cyphoidbomb finds, see Fly Rod & Reel magazine, Volume 11 Number 5 - November/December 1989 including cover photo. Troutfella (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me note that Troutfella has identified himself as the subject of this article. As such, he should be viewed as having a strong conflict of interest, and we should treat his assertions of media coverage with some caution... which is unfortunate at this case, as I suspect Fly Rod & Reel is not the easiest magazine to find an archive of. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Troutfella has been pretty forthcoming with the fact that this article is about him. I've directly recommended to him that he not edit the article because of a COI, and from his most recent comment to me, it looks like he's going to be in New Zealand for the next month, so the article is likely to get deleted anyway. On his talk page, I've raised the point with him that he needs to demonstrate significant coverage of he, himself, the man. If he were to provide either in this discussion or on the article's talk page, sufficient indication that he received significant coverage from reliable sources that demonstrated he was notable, surely we would strongly consider inclusion. His best work was presumably done at a time when the Internet was virtually nonexistent, so the best references for him would almost certainly be found in the difficult-to-locate world of print publications. Thankfully, we have The Reference Desk which is presumably populated with users who may have access to the very titles we need, such that we may not have to entirely discount the subject's loose references. We may want to perform a little extra diligence here, and if not, then when Richard comes back in a month, perhaps he can invest some time to research quality references so that we aren't tasked with that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here is a reliable source for the claim the FR&R awarded him Angler of the Year in '89. I'll leave it to others to judge the degree that that establishes notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One award is almost never a guarantee of inclusion. "Multiple" of any significant attention is usually the benchmark. So, if the subject could demonstrate multiple significant award wins, we would be ethically obligated to consider the possibility that he is notable. Again, coverage, coverage, coverage. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An award, if it's the right kind of award, crosses a bright line of notability seen in WP:ANYBIO. I'm not saying that Angels of the Year qualifies as that sort of award... but that he won the award makes it likely that the described cover feature also took place. And inclusion in the Hall of Fame can also be seen as recognition, but I've not looked into the granting institution to see if they carry weight. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 2010, by their own story here, the magazine only had a circulation of 45,000. An award from a magazine with that small a circulation certainly wouldn't be the right kind of award you speak of. John from Idegon (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if not, an accompanying article would be one key point toward satisfying WP:BASIC. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have no objection to this being Userfied to Cyphoidbomb, or moved to draft space as long as Troutfella promises to not work on it directly. John from Idegon (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft space would be better than in my User space. I'm only here as an observer in my gnome admin capacity. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- As you have not voted here, IMO, you are uninvolved enough to close and move. I'm all for giving this a shot, but agree that a non notable award from a non notable magazine is not enough. John from Idegon (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2015 (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.