It seems obvious that someone who, according to many Wikipedians, is one of those people who positions themselves as the debunker of the lying mainstream media, would be only too happy to have Wikipedia calling him a bad person, and they would simply want them to include alongside that, sufficient contextual information, like subscriber counts and book titles.Keep generally coverage in the New York Times, The Guardian, BBC, and books published by reputable publishers indicates notability. It’s small coverage, but coverage in major outlets isn’t exactly the same as your local paper, and there’s enough of it here that we shouldn’t be deleting the article (which would amount to a white wash as Dice hates it because it fairly and accurately portrays him.) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
If Tony et al are motivated more by what pisses Dice off, rather than fair and accurate portrayal, everything they are saying and doing to justify the current article, all the games and double-speak, all makes sense.
It is, of course, a basic Wikipedia principle that fair and accurate coverage of a living person's career or beliefs is only possible if that person is genuinely, proveably, notable, as in they have received "significant" and "in depth" coverage. If that was the case, the article would not look remotely like the thin gruel it does now.
Here's an example of what sort of coverage there is out there of Dice.....
...and if the goal really was to reflect the sources, in full, accurately and fairly, rather than do whatever you can think of doing to piss Dice off, it is most curious how those first four words seem not to have made it through the Wikipedia curation process, either literally as words on the page, or representative in the entirety of the work.conservative commentator and occasional conspiracy theorist Mark Dice