Deletion of Hugh Smith (news anchor)

Comment: for passing  and  by himself being covered in a more-than-trivial articles for over 20 years. Some examples: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pjIMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BGADAAAAIBAJ&pg=1393,3281119&dq=hugh-smith+weather St. Petersberg Times (1973), http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jMUNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NnMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3354,2865722&dq=hugh+smith+news+anchor St. Petersberg Times (1974),http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OQIMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dFkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6729,3245289&dq=hugh-smith+weather The Evening Independent (1986), http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cdoSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BvwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4640,5933777&dq=hugh+smith+news+anchor The Ledger (1989), http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OM8NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IXcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6617,3711947&dq=hugh-smith+weather St. Petersburg Times (1989), etc. There's more... http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Hugh+Smith+(news+anchor&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1960&as_hdate=1979&lnav=hist7 lots more. The article needs sourcing per , but that's not a reason for |deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:CLEANUP||WP:ATD)

Comment: passes , 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 -like quality), but they are sufficient sources nonetheless
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: So little care was given to sourcing this biography that http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pjIMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BGADAAAAIBAJ&pg=1393,3281119&dq=hugh-smith+news newspaper http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IRUOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FX0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4760,1016122&dq=hugh-smith+news advertisements and http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SukLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=y1kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6682,2143899&dq=hugh-smith+emmy scattered, http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=i9AMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PV8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7067,5034789&dq=hugh-smith+emmy trivial http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-BoMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=f1wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4573,6180057&dq=hugh-smith+news half http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AMsNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DHQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6367,762172&dq=hugh-smith+news sentences are used as references. Little in this article meets , 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: CFIF, as the author, I'm sure you think he is notable. But the argument of  isn't a valid one. Point those mayor articles out and maybe they'll get deleted too if the person isn't notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: Since the last delete opinions posted above, the article has been expanded and sourced. What was nominated for deletion as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugh_Smith_%28news_anchor%29&diff=295946641&oldid=263363210 this, is now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Smith_(news_anchor) THIS, with sourcing now meeting  and . There certainly is more that can be done, with |help from others after a keep
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:IMPROVE)