I believe this draft meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO criterion #3 (significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources).
WP:THREE best sources establishing notability:
- The Guardian (3 Nov 2021): UK’s longest-lasting snow patch melts… (substantial coverage with Cameron as named expert)
- National Museums Scotland (2 Feb 2022): “Snow Hunter: Collecting Scotland’s vanishing ice” (institutional coverage about Cameron and his work)
- Weather (RMetS journal, 2022): book review of The Vanishing Ice (independent scholarly/disciplinary review)
Additional independent coverage includes The Irish Times (3 Nov 2021) and The Guardian photo feature (18 Sep 2017). Ronofcam10 (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- [The draft's author posted the following on my Talk page and I'm copying it here for greater visibility and convenience. Cabrils]
- Hello Cabrils — I’ve revised Draft:Iain Cameron to focus on independent secondary sources demonstrating notability (per WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO), and have listed the WP:THREE best sources on the draft talk page. I’ve also added a COI disclosure on my user talk page. Many thanks for your time if you’re able to reassess. Ronofcam10 (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Ronofcam10,
- Thank you for providing WP:THREE, it assists significantly in the assessment process.
- Also, thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. Given the conflict, the review of the page needs to be handled with care, mindful of the higher bar set by pages produced in circumstances of conflict of interest. Such pages typically may read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial (see WP:PROMO), which Wikipedia is not; and/or contain prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPV).
- In relation to the sources you provided for WP:THREE:
- 1. The Guardian (3 Nov 2021): As you note, Cameron is identified as "an expert in snow cover who has been studying snow patches in Scotland for 25 years".
- 2. National Museums Scotland (2 Feb 2022): The substantive article is written by the subject, Cameron, and so that content cannot be considered reliable (as defined) because it is not authored by someone independent of the subject. However, the Introduction is written by Dr Sarah Laurenson, Principal Curator of Modern and Contemporary History, National Museums Scotland. As such, I would consider her sufficiently independent to be reliable. She describes the group of objects from Cameron's collections as "important additions to the contemporary collections at National Museums Scotland".
- 3. Weather (RMetS journal, 2022): This article is a review of Cameron's book The Vanishing Ice – Diaries of a Scottish Snow Hunter. In it, the reviewer, Dr Graham Denyer (a recipient of the 2020 Royal Meteorological Society's Outstanding Service Award) describes Cameron:
- "Indeed, Cameron has been studying snow patches in Scotland and other upland parts of Britain for 25 years. He took up this unusual pastime at the age of nine, when he observed the remnants of the previous winter's snowfall on the hills surrounding Loch Lomond. He is one of the authors who report regularly on the state of Scottish snow patches, including an annual report in Weather. Snow patch hunting has a long pedigree in Scotland, but over recent years has found a new and larger audience thanks to Iain who has written scientific articles for The Times and appeared on the BBC's ‘Winterwatch’."
- In my view these sources do demonstrate notability.
- Being mindful of the declared COI, I feel the draft meets the relevant criteria, and on balance I agree the draft is now "unlikely to be deleted in mainspace” (see WP:AFCR), and meets (at least) WP:ANYBIO, and probably WP:NPROF. Accordingly, if you care to re-submit the draft, please notify me here, and I would be happy to accept it into mainspace. Cabrils (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR) but presently it is not clear that it does. As you may know, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. In short, "notability" requires reliable sources about the subject, rather than by the subject.Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject, you must declare that on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). In instances of a conflict of interest, the review of the page needs to be handled with care, mindful of the higher bar set by pages produced in circumstances of such a conflict. Such pages typically may read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial (see WP:PROMO), which Wikipedia is not; and/or contain prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPV). Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page.It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX"). Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page, including the name of the draft page, and I would be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)