406:, 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":
282:
370:, 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.
417:
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
479:
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
452:
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
418:
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
167:
281:- 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
285:
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.
128:
161:
216:
409:^ Thomas, Etan (November 27, 2006). "Huff Post Politics". Work Ethic? Look At Your Columns, Tom Knott. Huffington Post. Retrieved December 01, 2011.
483:
I have added some more reliable, independent sources to substantiate the article, including PBS, The LA Times, and Salon.com among others.
395:'s observations are, I respectfully observe, simply not true, and risk misrepresenting in good faith what is written in the article.
17:
412:^ Steinberg, Dan (June 15, 2007). "D.C. Sports Bog". Tom Knott Crushes Gilbert. Washington Post. Retrieved December 01, 2011.
101:
96:
182:
105:
468:
377:
149:
324:– The article itself may have been lacking reliable sources, but they were available. Topic notability is about the
263:
88:
554:
40:
488:
427:
290:
346:
With thanks to
Chiswick for relisting and improvements. I am happy that my AFD stimulated some interest. --
143:
550:
332:
36:
436:
Who is it who is making "observations are, I respectfully observe, simply not true" here, Chiswick? "
139:
351:
203:
535:
492:
474:
431:
383:
355:
338:
316:
294:
270:
230:
207:
70:
312:
175:
484:
423:
286:
189:
328:
of reliable sources, not whether or not they are present in an article. Non-dubious notability.
198:
Lack RS and despite 2 year old tagging no efforts to improve have occurred. Dubious notability.
226:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
549:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
513:
419:
241:
403:
399:
347:
199:
308:
258:
155:
92:
445:
364:
222:
303:
per
Chiswick Chap's improvements. It's often hard to come up with direct coverage
122:
461:"significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
464:
392:
373:
244:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
84:
76:
253:
448:
discussions that this source is not considered particularly reliable. The
398:
The citations by Etan Thomas and Dan
Steinberg are respectively from the
449:
543:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
307:
journalists but I think there's enough here to pass the test. --
118:
114:
110:
174:
440:
is an
American news website and content-aggregating
251:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
557:). No further edits should be made to this page.
188:
8:
217:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
215:Note: This debate has been included in the
512:in the article proves this person notable.
455:four blog posts and the topics own writings
214:
7:
363:blog posts should not be used on a
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
510:Reception by other journalists
210:23:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
1:
231:02:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
208:23:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
536:00:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
508:The well referenced section
493:14:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
475:08:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
432:08:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
384:04:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
356:14:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
339:11:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
317:21:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
295:08:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
271:07:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
71:00:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
444:..." It is also clear from
574:
546:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
438:The Huffington Post
335:
48:The result was
337:
331:
273:
233:
220:
565:
548:
532:
529:
526:
523:
520:
517:
473:
420:Washington Times
382:
336:
333:Northamerica1000
329:
269:
266:
261:
256:
250:
246:
221:
193:
192:
178:
126:
108:
68:
34:
573:
572:
568:
567:
566:
564:
563:
562:
561:
555:deletion review
544:
530:
527:
524:
521:
518:
515:
471:
462:
404:Washington Post
400:Huffington Post
380:
371:
330:
264:
259:
254:
252:
239:
135:
99:
83:
80:
64:
60:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
571:
569:
560:
559:
539:
538:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
481:
467:
415:
414:
413:
410:
396:
387:
386:
376:
361:Strong delete:
358:
341:
319:
276:
275:
274:
248:
247:
236:
235:
234:
196:
195:
132:
79:
74:
62:
58:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
570:
558:
556:
552:
547:
541:
540:
537:
534:
533:
511:
507:
504:
503:
494:
490:
486:
485:Chiswick Chap
482:
478:
477:
476:
472:
470:
466:
460:
456:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:
433:
429:
425:
424:Chiswick Chap
421:
416:
411:
408:
407:
405:
401:
397:
394:
391:
390:
389:
388:
385:
381:
379:
375:
369:
366:
362:
359:
357:
353:
349:
345:
342:
340:
334:
327:
323:
320:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
299:
298:
297:
296:
292:
288:
287:Chiswick Chap
284:
283:Google search
280:
272:
267:
262:
257:
249:
245:
243:
238:
237:
232:
228:
224:
218:
213:
212:
211:
209:
205:
201:
191:
187:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:Find sources:
133:
130:
124:
120:
116:
112:
107:
103:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
81:
78:
75:
73:
72:
69:
67:
66:
65:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
545:
542:
514:
509:
505:
463:
458:
454:
441:
437:
372:
367:
360:
343:
326:availability
325:
321:
304:
300:
278:
277:
240:
197:
185:
179:
171:
164:
158:
152:
146:
136:
57:
56:
55:
49:
47:
31:
28:
457:-- this is
162:free images
61:rbitrarily
551:talk page
480:reporter.
309:Arxiloxos
223:• Gene93k
85:Tom Knott
77:Tom Knott
37:talk page
553:or in a
402:and the
242:Relisted
129:View log
39:or in a
348:S. Rich
200:S. Rich
168:WP refs
156:scholar
102:protect
97:history
446:WP:RSN
368:at all
365:WP:BLP
140:Google
106:delete
531:Focus
469:Stalk
465:Hrafn
450:DCist
393:Hrafn
378:Stalk
374:Hrafn
305:about
183:JSTOR
144:books
123:views
115:watch
111:links
16:<
506:Keep
489:talk
442:blog
428:talk
352:talk
344:Keep
322:Keep
313:talk
301:Keep
291:talk
279:Keep
227:talk
204:talk
176:FENS
150:news
119:logs
93:talk
89:edit
50:keep
459:not
190:TWL
127:– (
491:)
430:)
422:.
354:)
315:)
293:)
229:)
219:.
206:)
170:)
121:|
117:|
113:|
109:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
52:.
528:m
525:a
522:e
519:r
516:D
487:(
426:(
350:(
311:(
289:(
268:.
265:c
260:τ
255:Σ
225:(
202:(
194:)
186:·
180:·
172:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
142:(
134:(
131:)
125:)
87:(
63:0
59:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.