Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael S. Schmidt

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. Nomination withdrawn, with thanks to the participants, esp. those with sharper eyes than me. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Schmidt

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

A7 tag removed by SPA. Article makes no claim to notability; there is no inherent notability for reporters, not even if they work for the NYT. No references are included that warrant inclusion as a professional or via the GNG. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Down at the bottom of the article, listed under External links instead of References, are two articles about this reporter from the New York Observer. The first one is entitled "Meet Michael Schmidt, the Young Times Writer Who Exposes Baseball’s Worst", and it's a very thorough profile of the subject, commenting that he was "eating the lunch of all his competitors in the off-the-field, performance-enhancing-drugs beat—probably the most important in sports today." . The second article came a year later, entitled "Who Broke the Times’ Roger Clemens Story? Ah, Yes! Michael Schmidt Again", and it describes Schmidt as "one of the most notable reporters at the paper." Add in the several other mentions of his work in other sources footnoted in the article, and his notability seems established to me. But we could also mention, if necessary, that he shows up as a guest on other folks' news shows as an expert, for example on NPR[1] and ESPN[2]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice catch, Arxiloxos. Reference "2" also appears to be a reliable source. Seems notable, although definitely in need of some work. —JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 07:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ah, the notable journalist problem again. Yes, the 2 refs talking about Schmidt here would seem to be enough to show notability. The real trouble is that the guideline on Journalists is wildly out of line with reality - journalists get famous by writing well in major publications, what would you expect them to do, and yet we are barely allowed to mention the fact. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2012 (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.