Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Knott


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom Knott

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lack RS and despite 2 year old tagging no efforts to improve have occurred. Dubious notability. S. Rich (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)23:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Σ  τ  c . 07:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)



Keep - the article was indeed a sad sight. However, Knott certainly is a long-serving staffer on the Washington Times. Search is harder than it could be as 'Tom Knott' is quite a common name: I tried Google search which helped a bit. Knott certainly ruffles feathers: have added a citation or two to prove he's notable among other journalists. Not a man I'd like, I think, but people definitely notice him. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Chiswick Chap's improvements. It's often hard to come up with direct coverage about journalists but I think there's enough here to pass the test. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – The article itself may have been lacking reliable sources, but they were available. Topic notability is about the availability of reliable sources, not whether or not they are present in an article. Non-dubious notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep With thanks to Chiswick for relisting and improvements. I am happy that my AFD stimulated some interest. --S. Rich (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: blog posts should not be used on a WP:BLP at all, and in any case do not establish notability. The only remaining sources appears to be Knott's own writings for the Washington Times, which likewise do not establish notability. Therefore no reliable independent coverage has been proffered to establish notability, and we're left with simply the claim that the topic is "a long-serving staffer on the Washington Times" -- which would appear insufficient, on its own, to establish notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hrafn's observations are, I respectfully observe, simply not true, and risk misrepresenting in good faith what is written in the article.
 * The citations by Etan Thomas and Dan Steinberg are respectively from the Huffington Post and the Washington Post, the latter I agree a blog-like column but from a staff reporter on the newspaper, writing on the newspaper's website, so these are good strong sources, and exactly the kind of place where journalists do comment publicly, responsibly and accountably on each other's work. ("Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.") These are serious journalists on reliable publications, and they have taken the time to risk their reputations in public to criticise Knott. So, yes, these constitute "reliable independent coverage":
 * ^ Thomas, Etan (November 27, 2006). "Huff Post Politics". Work Ethic? Look At Your Columns, Tom Knott. Huffington Post. Retrieved December 01, 2011.
 * ^ Steinberg, Dan (June 15, 2007). "D.C. Sports Bog". Tom Knott Crushes Gilbert. Washington Post. Retrieved December 01, 2011.
 * As for listing Knott's own writings, they are not there to establish notability - I've simply provided a means of finding 245 articles via a single link, while the two articles of his that are cited directly are those that the other journalists were discussing, so I have rightly included links to those to make visible what the matter under discussion -specific items of Knott's journalism- was. The claim to notability absolutely does not rest on the true assertion that Knott is a long-standing staffer on the Washington Times. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is it who is making "observations [that] are, I respectfully observe, simply not true" here, Chiswick? "The Huffington Post is an American news website and content-aggregating blog ..." It is also clear from WP:RSN discussions that this source is not considered particularly reliable. The DCist is likewise a blog. Whilst the Washington Post-parented blog citations may be acceptable under the "some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs" exception, such blog posts add very little to notability in terms of prominence and depth of sourcing. What we have here is four blog posts and the topics own writings -- this is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite right about DCIST - I had filtered against blogs but some always get through. Huffington isn't the New York Times but still, it's a site with some standing. The sports blogs of US newspapers are allowed under WP's rules, and they seem especially appropriate in an article on a sports reporter.
 * I have added some more reliable, independent sources to substantiate the article, including PBS, The LA Times, and Salon.com among others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The well referenced section Reception by other journalists in the article proves this person notable.  D r e a m Focus  00:22, 5 December 2011 (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.