Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thom Dickerson

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. Sandstein 07:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Dickerson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long-term news reporter, undoubtedly doing a good job but without any indication of notability. The sources do not constitute significant coverage and the general notability criteria are not met. A clip of his swearing on camera became popular on YouTube for a while, but that is not grounds for notability since reliable independent sources have not discussed it. bonadea contributions talk 11:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The RFK journalism award is a notable national award, which establishes the subject's notability. That he won it in the 1970s means that documentation is hard to find - it's probably only available in newspaper morgues or behind paywalls 40 years later, but it is not a type of notability that would fade over time. The Youtube clip came very late in his life, after he had stopped reporting for television. Risker (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winning the RFK award would probably be a real claim to notability although the Wikipedia article about the award is only sourced to its own website. However, Dickerson was not a "winner" of the award, but the recipient of a "special citation" which appears to be the third level (below "winner" and "honourable mention"). There is a Washington Post article confirming this: [1]. Since that is the only claim to notability I am still not convinced, I'm afraid. --bonadea contributions talk 07:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the award confusion (thank you Bonadea) Dickerson remains a popular part of internet popularity, and an important character for many older people living in Houston. Although not cited, Dickerson hosted an outdoors segment during his media career which was very well received. Any search of the said name, "WTF Reporter" or "Tailgate Jones" will yield results which prove Thom Dickerson's notability in his later years. YouTube popularity can be an as legitimate reason for notability as an award. Your thoughts please. --collectr(u • t • c) 18:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can be, but personally I can't see it being the case here. Notability is not measured in Google hits or number of views of a YT clip, unless those hits or views have been discussed in independent reliable sources. The WTF clip is one case of a reporter being open and honest on camera which is a good thing of course, but that isn't part of any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. If a Google search would actually yield reliable secondary sources, that's great! I have not been able to find them, but maybe that's because of where I am located, so if you have access to such sources it would be excellent if they were added to the article. --bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've tried using some different search engines, but I haven't come up with many legitimate references for the YT aspect. What I did find, were original recordings of some of Thom's segments. I've attached these as appropriately on the article. I'm happy to disregard the YT aspect. I still believe that this reporter deserves attention for a very long and interesting career, and I feel that this Wikipedia page would act well to bring together all of the sources. 25+ years in a reputable reporting agency (appearing on a regular basis) is an impressive feat alone. The YT videos add to the notability. I appreciate your discussion on the matter as I think it's important to have a devil's advocate. --collectr(u • t • c) 23:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough with proper references. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which references are 'proper'? There are no references in the article that aren't either primary sources or very local coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 18:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have cleaned up the article, removing the inappropriate "Internet fame" section and an unsupported claim; this also removed some primary/non-RS sources. --bonadea contributions talk 18:44, 6 April 2018 (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.