Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Theodoulou

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The result was withdrawn by nominator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 23:28, June 4, 2009

Michael Theodoulou[edit]

No sources. No assertion of notability. Just seems like a guy doing his job and little more.Niteshift36 (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (expected, as I created the article stub). It is notoriously difficult to find information about rather than by journalists. This one has been prolific and highly active for decades, reporting on important topics for top-notch news outlets (see http://www.journalisted.com/michael-theodoulou for recent activity in UK-based news sources). His articles are quoted in numerous books (see http://books.google.com/books?q=%22michael+theodoulou%22&btnG=Search+Books). What this article needs is expansion, not deletion. Consumers of media are interested in the backgrounds of correspondents, and Wikipedia should endeavor to include such information. Bongo matic 06:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in the article you can show (with sources of course) what makes him different (therefore notable) from hundreds of other journalists without articles that are just doing their job. I might withdraw the nom if you could show that. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually made an extensive attempt to identify sources (Internet-based and otherwise) before creating the stub, but failed. I don't have a policy- or guideline-based argument for keeping the article other than (what I think is) WP:COMMONSENSE in light of a systematic sourcing problem. If the article gets deleted, I'm not overly bothered, Either way, I will continue to search for sources. I have actually e-mailed the journalist at the address given on one of his articles (no idea if it's valid) to ask if he has ever been profiled, won awards, or the like.

Many of the subject-specific guidelines operate under the conceit that certain indicia are evidence that sufficient reliably sourced coverage actually exists, just has not been identified. Don't know what the correct ones would be for journalists, but (even without awards) could imagine that being widely cited and having written hundreds of articles for top newspapers would suffice. Bongo matic 07:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Bongomatic. Nobody writes about journalists, but their work can be extremely influential. One way to tell that a journalist is significant, is having an impact, is (if he has a reasonably unique name) to type his name into google books. Ordinary journalists reporting routine stories will have only a handful of hits. A long list of hits means that the guy's stories are unusually original, important, insightful. This guy has lots of hits. User:Bongomatic should go to those books, he will very likely discover that some of them describe Theoloulou's work and explain why it is significant. And, by the by, it is guys doing important jobs (like journalism) well who matter in the world. Wikipedia is filled with articles on low-lifes who robbed a bank or blew up a church. We could use a lot more articles on guys who do their jobs well. Especially if those articles link them into the context of the industries and professional fields in which their work has made difference.Historicist (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the link to journalisted that Bongomatic provided. One thing I noticed was he wrote more than the average number of articles, but that the length of the articles was significantly below the average. Are most of his pieces shorter in nature? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My suspicion is that this is a matter of editorial discretion of the newspapers in which his work is published. Articles on what's up in Iran simply don't get the same airplay in Scotland as Britain's Got Talent. Bongo matic 22:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize. I really do. And I am looking into as (as is obvious since I bothered to search your link) and I'm considereding withdrawing the AfD because of professional reasons, not over the hollow WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reasoning about bank robbers having pages that Historicist put forth. Apparently Brits aren't much different than Americans. Average Americans can tell you who the final 5 are on American Idol but don't know their own congressman's name. Sad, isn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't have a policy- or guideline-based justification that the article should be kept. I have no objection to the article being removed and recreated when (if) I can find more citations for the subject. This person is notable, but Wikipedia is all about WP:V, and not about what's true—a distinction I strongly agree with. DGG noted (in a talk page comment solicited by me) that citation and productivity are accepted in WP:PROF, but unfortunately, there isn't the same sort of database of news article that would permit a quick count, nor do I intend to do a search of sufficient quality to reliably estimate the number of articles that Theodoulou has written (easy to both over- and underestimate). Bongo matic 22:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Because I do sympathize with your position, I'm going to withdraw the AfD. I agree, there needs to be more clearly defined criteria for what makes a reporter notable and I'm not entirely convinced this guy would make it with a reasonably strict criteria, but I do recognize the lack of coverage of those who cover the news (it happens in other professions too) and I appreciate the civil and reasoned way you've presented yourself (unlike some who decided to lecture me). Now I just have to make sure I remove the AfD correctly. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (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.