Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Toner (journalist)

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Toner (journalist)

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

Sources appear to be related to the subject, or mention him only in passing. Article does not indicate notability per wp:JOURNALIST or wp:GNG. Google search does not turn up anything better. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn - It seems leader writers operate in ways that make them appear less notable than they are. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leader writers for major UK newspapers seem to be notable. It is odd that this particular leader writer has been chosen for deletion at this particular moment in time. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexdeGrey (talk • contribs) 20:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure how this process works but precedence indicates this is how it's done. I think that the editor who has suggested deletion needs to use google books and add additional words to Toner's name such as 'Michael Toner political editor', 'Michael Toner Sunday Express' etc. I have included a number of additional references to assist. Not sure where the nominator is based but UK leader writers tend to operate in the shadows ... yet effectively act as newspaper editors when the actual editor is absent. Toner was leader writer of two significant British newspapers — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexdeGrey (talk • contribs) 13:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a key member of the British press establishment in the last quarter of the 20th century: as Political editor of a UK national newspaper with access to senior political circles (interviewing Prime Ministers etc.) and also for his role as chief leader writer for two national UK newspapers. The work of the leader writer is normally done anonymously which explains happysquirrel’s observation of lack of google hits above. As he was a leader writer for over twenty years his unattributed work/output must be prodigious. However, the article cites multiple sources for his work as Crossbencher columnist for the Sunday Express and, as suggested by the person above, hits do rise when you google “Michael Toner Sunday Express” (although google shouldn’t be the only authority here). He is also notable as a writer: for Bluffer’s Guides and as a novelist given that worldcat cites four works in 117 libraries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandolini (talk • contribs) 10:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep user:Happysquirrel, you may want to withdraw this AFD. Kudos to User:AlexdeGrey for sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks to have held significant positions on significant newspapers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2015 (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.