Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Smith (news anchor)


 * 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   keep. Flowerparty ☀ 17:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hugh Smith (news anchor)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:CREATIVE. He appears to have had a relatively unremarkable career on local affiliates. The only thing marking him as different than everyone else is a couple of arrests for soliciting prostitutes Niteshift36 (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Biography of a dead person removed from list.  لenna  vecia  00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep someone who has worked in market(s) with millions of people in it is definitely notable. Why do small-town mayors get Wikipedia articles when they would fall under the same criteria? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: CFIF, as the author, I'm sure you think he is notable. But the argument of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid one. Point those mayor articles out and maybe they'll get deleted too if the person isn't notable.
 * Delete per nom. I work in a market with over a million people, does that make me notable? Resolute 15:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources over many years. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Of course you'll find trivial mentions of his name in the local newspapers. That doesn't rise to notability. And the google search you linked to shows plenty of hits that are not him, so I'm not sure what you think it is evidence of. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article could use a "Stub" tag and may require more information, but anyone doing research on this personality, as I was, certainly benefits from the information contained here; his arrests do make him notable to someone from any of the regions he's worked in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.223.164 (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is why BLP articles are harmful (although I'm aware that he died in 2007). We've set low bars to include hundreds (if not thousands) of people who did a public job (film/television production and professional sports being the worst offenders) for X period of time, and any embarrassing material that crops up is permanently aggregated in this series. This is genuine evil done to the subjects, who have no way of opting out and significant social barriers to doing anything about it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Exactly. His two arrests for misdemeanor crimes aren't notable and most people have long forgotten about it....unitl they come to Wikipedia to remind them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing a good indication of notability or lasting significance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for passing WP:GNG and WP:BIO by himself being covered in a more-than-trivial articles for over 20 years. Some examples: St. Petersberg Times (1973), St. Petersberg Times (1974),The Evening Independent (1986), The Ledger (1989), St. Petersburg Times (1989), etc. There's more... lots more. The article needs sourcing per WP:CLEANUP, but that's not a reason for deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, like in the other AfD, you provide LOCAL newspaper coverage of the local newsman. Some people might not realize that Tampa and St. Pete are within sight of each other (literally), but I do. And it's mostly trivial coverage to boot. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the guideline and I actually looked at my sources. You are speaking as if notability over 20 years for several million people is not notability. Sorry, an extreme minimalist view is not supported by guideline, as we're not talking about a neighborhood bake sale. Notability over 20 years for a few dozen million is just as worthy as notability for 300 milion. He meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG through "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and with coverage that is more-than-trivial even if not in-depth and substantive. "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first link is an advertisement. Your second link is a profile of several different anchors in the area. Your third link is about a different Smith. The fifth link is one sentence buried deep in a story, mentioning Hugh Smith offhand.
 * You have one single reference that is about Hugh Smith in any substantial way, and it's more about a new show on which he will be working than about him. How is that justification to keep a biography that does significant harm to the subject? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually helping to improve the article would be much more productive than a critique of my opinion of the article's potential or the results of my initial WP:AFTER search... specially considering the length of the man's career. Thank you though for your input. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but harm to the subject and bad sources. Care to address? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: Since the last delete opinions posted above, the article has been expanded and sourced. What was nominated for deletion as this, is now THIS, with sourcing now meeting WP:V and WP:RS. There certainly is more that can be done, with help from others after a keep.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closer. So little care was given to sourcing this biography that newspaper advertisements and scattered, trivial half sentences are used as references. Little in this article meets WP:RS, and no effort has been made to address the harm to the subject. This carelessness is exactly why we shouldn't have these articles. Propping up eternal records of everyone's malfeasance with non-sources is not what Wikipedia is for, and it's actively dangerous to the health of this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The one sentence referring to his news covered arrest has been removed. Removing it was far more productive that debating its inclusion. Article meets WP:V. Assertions meet WP:RS.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why was it removed? There's better coverage of that than his career. (Which is the point.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed because you seemed to have problem with it and I did not feel like arguing a point here that affects so many other articles across all of Wikipedia. If someone does something notorious that makes the news and actually results in a major bump in their careers, it should be included... tactifully... if covered in reliable sources. Wikipedia has precedent for careful inclusion of such events for BLP's of both living and deceased persons in order to inform readers of an article topic.... just as Chappaquiddick was a little bump for Ted Kennedy and is included... and various scandals were a major bump for Fatty Arbuckle and were included. I ask that you yourself find the way to best re-include it, as your concerns are appreciated.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And those scandals are famous scandals about famous people, whereas this is just a guy who works in a public job, until his career was ruined by a misdemeanor conviction and he disappeared. Where's the substantial coverage in reliable sources of this man's career or his crime? "Careful inclusion" is not advertisements and articles chiefly about his employer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:N clearly and easily while BLP doesn't apply. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, adding 7 different sources to say the same thing, that he really worked there, makes the article so much better. BTW, there is no BLP's for the deceased. The L stands for livingNiteshift36 (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agreed on BLP, so I'm not sure of your point. And yes, I'd call the coverage non-trivial, reliable and multiple.  So per WP:N, we keep. Hobit (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable coverages to easily meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to closing administrator: after weeding out advertisements, blog posts, duplicate links, and very brief offhand mentions (less than half a sentence) in articles chiefly about other subjects, the article looks like this. The remaining references are a non-biographical profile of all of the news anchors of Tampa Bay, a brief mention that WTVT changed news directors (mentioning Hugh Smith as the second of two job changes), and an article that is about Hugh Smith getting a radio job after his television career was ruined. All are in the St. Petersburg Times. Two peripheral mentions and one article about Hugh Smith, all in the same newspaper, are not significant coverage in reliable sources. The only significant coverage is an obvious WP:ONEEVENT candidate. This is not sufficient for an encyclopedia biography. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". I think we've got that.  One event is, IMO, bogus.  But opinions may vary, which is why AfD exists.  20:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The only factual claims supported by an article that isn't about his arrest are "Hugh Smith worked for [station] as of [this date]." I don't think that's substantial coverage, and many of the keeps implicitly rest on Schmidt's impressive-looking list of terrible non-references. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:N and sources added by Michael. Granite thump (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The removal of many sources toward WP:V have been repaired by the addition of 2 in-depth articles written of the subject by the two major newspapers in that area... the Tampa Tribune (#38 in the nations top 100 newspapers) and the St. Petersberg Times (#20 in the nation's top 100 newspapers). Their serving an area of nearly 3 million people, shows coverage to nearly 10% of the U.S. population. Guideline does not mandate WP:RS coverage to be national or international to be considered "significant"... and whether for "just" 3 million or for 300 million, notability is notability.  The subject meets WP:N and WP:BIO.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Michael, you are so hung up on the numbers that you are missing the point. It's not about how many viewers there are in the market or how many people get the Tampa Tribune, is is the coverage itself. An article saying "Weatherman X visited a local school today and talked about hurrican prep" is trivial coverage. An article about a parade that says "Reporter Y rode on the float from WWWW-TV" is trivial. These aren't professional accomplishments, they are professional obligations. Due to my professional obligations, I give talks to school age children 2-3 times a week. So what if I've been mentioned in newspapers or local TV stations. That doesn't make me notable, it just means I'm doing my job. Let me use another example: Take the public information officer of your local police dept. If you live in a community of any real size, they are quoted, by name, in your local papers almost every day. They probably appear on TV a couple of times a week. We could find a lot of mentions of their name in very reliable sources. But does that make the PIO really notable? I say no. He/she is simply doing their job and that entails being the dept. spokesperson. There is little coverage of any depth on these people because most are nomads. They go from one market to another, being minor local celebrities who speak at local Rotary luncheons or appear at new car dealership openings. Some like Smith find a place they like and become comfortable and stay there, but they are still minor in terms of notability. They simply go to work and do their job. That job happens to be on camera. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Numbers? It was not I that dismissed coverage by 2 major newspapers serving a major portion of US population to be only "local". This required refutation because WP:RS and WP:N do not mandate that coverage of a person be world-wide. What is notable to 3 million in Florida is not notable to 3 million in New York or Bombay. The man served WTVT for nearly 28 years and was a pioneer in his industry at that time and place.  Your hyptheticals are interesting, but do nothing to convince me that he does not meet WP:BIO. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether it is 3000 or 3 million circulation, local is local. I never said world-wide, you foisted that on me. I said the coverage is local. I've live within 1.5 hours from Tampa for 21 of the past 25 years and never saw an article on him. I know that isn't proof, but it's a reasonable example, since I am an avid news reader. If he isn't that well known beyond a 100 mile radius, I'm sensing "local". And you call him notable to 3 million Floridians, but that is based on your own hypothetical that the majority of Tampa Tribune readers even went to the story. Want to bet the stories were either carried in the lifestyle type sections or the...wait for it....local section of the paper? And why do you call him a pioneer? I see nothing in his bio that indicates pioneer. BTW, check your math. 3 million is not 10% of 300 million. It is 1% Niteshift36 (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 million = one percent. Yes, thank you. I still do not agree that being covered by 2 of the top 100 newspapers in the United States makes him non-notable. And until this article was nominated for deletion, I had never heard of him either. Thank you though for sharing your views.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth pointing out that those 2 newspaper are printed within 20 miles of each other (ie local). And probably worth saying again that the standard isn't coverage, it is "non-trivial coverage". Niteshift36 (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Its already been pointed out twice above that the two major newspapers in question are among the top 100 in the United States in circulation, and I could not find it anywhere in guideline that reliable sources could not be printed within 20 miles of each other. And so it's also worth saying agin that the standards include "if coverage is not significant, multiple sources may be required". However, (1974) "Even Off Air They're News", (1991) "Hugh Smith works stint at radio station", (2007) "Pioneering Anchor Smith Dies" are not exactly trivial. Nor are these unadded ones trivial: (1982) "Polk Pulse", "More on Smith incident (1), "More on Smith Incident (2)", "Smith's treatment called degrading", "'ox-cart government' forces him to leave 'my America'", or (1983) "Guzzling coffee and hanging out some dirty laundry", or (1991) "Hugh Smith's 'very Steep' Climb Back", "Hugh Smith at work", "Anchorman admits to sex with hookers", or (2007) "Hugh Smith, Cronkite Of Bay Area, Dies At 73". Its possible we may each have a different definition of trivial. Again, thank you for sharing your view.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 11:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh....you simply aren't reading what I am writing. First, my illustration isn't a strawman, it is an example of how simply being mentioned in article about your job don't equal notability. Sometimes if you step away from the topic and look at an example that you don't have strong feelings about, it makes it clear. However you apparently don't see the parallel. Second, you keep asserting that I am saying that a local papers coverage can't be notable. I never said that. What I have said, time and again, is that the coverage they are doing it trivial and it's being done because they are local. If the man weren't nearby, they wouldn't have cared at all, nor would they print trivial stuff, like talking to school kids etc., if it weren't for the fact that he was local. Please stop misrepresenting what I said. I know we're not talking about a bake sale. You've said that at least 3 times now, if not more. We just apparently have extremely different views about what non-trivial coverage is. I don't see notability in talking to the Elks lodge or handing out the blue ribbons at your beloved bake sales. You obviously do. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The very first unadded source you provided is a letter to the editor. I stopped there. If you consider a letter to the editor to be acceptable coverage, then we have very different views on what coverage is. Your "the guidelines don't say" thing is getting old because you are using a strawman. While clinging tightly to the numbers of 2 newspapers circulation, you deny the fact that the coverage is local, no matter how you cut it and that the coverage isn't in-depth. It is mostly superficial and trivial in nature. And you'd have never called him a "pioneer" if someone hadn't done it in a eulogy. First color newscast? So what? He had nothing to do with the technical issues etc. He simply sat in the chair and read the news the same way he did the night before. It was the cameramen that had new equipment to figure out. First hourlong newscast? Oh wow.....talk about trailblazing Being on camera a little longer. How did he ever manage? First remote live spot? Again, he simply did what he's always done.... talk on camera. The producers and cameramen were the ones with new things to figure out. Why do I bother to go over it? Because when people start throwing around terms like pioneer that was picked up during a eulogy/obituary (where everyone talks nice no matter what), it leads to a false sense of notability. Again, I go to the example of a PIO, who has plenty of mentions in print and video, but doesn't have notability on their own actions. You're correct, we do have different definitions of notability. I see notability as being more than simply going to work every day and doing your job, which is simply informing people about things someone else did. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With respects, it is repeated comparisons to a public information oficer, or asserting conclusions that are not supported by guideline that are the Strawman arguments. My own are based directly on guideline and policy. I cannot agree that coverage by newspapers closest to the event makes something non-notable. The unadded sources, even the ones you decided to not look at, were offered only to show that he has been in the news for 28 years. But since you like comparisons, here's one a bit more cogent: If a "local" event in New York City was covered by New York Times, New York Post, Village Voice, New York Observer and New York Daily News, simply because those are printed within 20 miles of each other does not then make the event non-notable, even if somone from Los Angeles or London or Honk Kong never reads those papers nor hears of the event. This is why guideline does not support that minimalist view. Sorry, we're not talking about a neighborhood bake sale being written up in a small-town gazettee.  Thank you for your views.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I never wrote that getting a bake sale blue ribbon was notable. I cannot agree with your opinion that continued in-depth coverage in reliable sources is trivial simply because it a was by major newspapers covering a subject in their area. I myself accept that his notability is shown by multiple in-depth articles in reliable sources covering the man over 28 years of television and personal history. Your assertion that he would not have been written about in the papers if he were not somehow of some sort of note in that area, is an excellent point, as WP:N does not demand national coverage when it mandates in-depth coverage in reliable sources.  That is was his job?  That's no reason to exclude, as a majority of notable persons listed in Wikipedia are here specifically because of their jobs... and might never be notable if it were not for their jobs. Thank you for your views.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you did say the blue ribbon was notable. Frankly, I'm getting aggravated by your continual misrepresentation of my position and I think I need to cease this discussion on my end before it takes a turn I'd prefer not to. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability comfortably established following the usual excellent improvements of Mr Schmidt. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - passes WP:RS, just about. It's unfortunate that almost all the significant coverage is from obituaries rather than articles written during his life (which gives the article a slightly WP:ONEEVENT-like quality), but they are sufficient sources nonetheless. Robofish (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.