Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paddy Scott

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete‎. The "keep" !votes were not grounded in any guideline or policy. ✗plicit 12:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Scott

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Paddy Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot see or find anything to suggest notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message TheLongTone. My thoughts on notability had been that it adds context to the Willis Resilience Expedition article as well as the family information of Bladen Hawke and Sir Nicholas Scott JaneBotha94 (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added the appropriate incoming links so it is no longer an orphan article JaneBotha94 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep. See Category:Fellows of the Royal Geographical Society, while his FRGS status alone does not constitute notability, if a fair amount of well-sourced information can be found, the article should remain. The article has just been created today, see WP:BEFORE C.2 - the article likely requires time to develop. TheOilSpillExpert (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For work relating to Willis Resilience Expedition, live interviews from the Antarctic Interior are rare, and were even rarer (if not a first) in 2013/24 Mary.Cunliffe66 (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel his work raising awareness of cancer in younger men, as well as the added context to the page Sir Nicholas Scott gives a level of notability. I agree that the article will develop further with time. JaneBotha94 (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The strength of an argument is usually when it's backed by relevant policies and not just mere opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Burke's Peerage
 Yes Yes No ✘ No
Conde Nast Traveller
 No Written by Scott ✘ No
Paddy Scott - Expeditions
 No Scott's personal website ✘ No
"19-year-old explorer leads expedition to South Pole for Willis"
 Yes Yes No Does not mention Scott ✘ No
"Armed Men Confiscate AP Equipment in Crimea"
 Yes Yes No Does not mention Scott ✘ No
"The Unstoppable Force"
 Yes Yes No Short description of a photograph by Scott ✘ No
Humanity's Effect on our Planet's "Permanent" Landscapes
 No Talk by Scott ✘ No
Behind the Lens
 No Talk by Scott ✘ No
(same as #6)
 No ✘ No
"Wildlife Photographer of the Year"
 No Scott's personal website ✘ No
"Wildlife Photographer of the Year" (Press London)
 No Interview Yes No ✘ No
"How This Intrepid adventurer faced his battle with cancer"
 Yes Yes ~ Primarily sourced to interview with Scott ~ Partial
"The Unexpected rise of cancer among Millenials"
 Yes Yes No Scott is not primary subject ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete I can find no coverage that would meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. A photograph of his was highly commended in a competition - that is not enough to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. As for being a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, their website states: "Application for Fellowship is open to anyone, who can demonstrate: Either a sufficient involvement in geography or allied subject through training, professional work, research, publications or other work of a similar nature, Or five years continuous commitment to the Society as a Member." It costs £139 per year. So that does not meet WP:NACADEMIC C3, which says "The person has been ... a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor." The creator of the article may not be aware of the WP:BASIC criteria for whether someone warrants their own article. See also WP:TOOSOON: "Sometimes, a topic may appear obviously notable to you, but there may not be enough independent coverage of it to confirm that. In such cases, it may simply be too soon to create the article." RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Based on the source analysis, the subject fails GNG, NARTIST, and BASIC criteria for notability. He sound like an interesting person, tho. Netherzone (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paddy_Scott&oldid=1272173277"