Deletion of Contrarian Journalism

Comment: if i get called a contrarian and simple bugaboo with wandering deletist intentions of steak-filled, Twain-esque dogmatism once more, i might change my vote. also, does not pass  nor 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: In its original state it read as a personal essay with |original research and synthesis of various sources into a whole somewhat less than the sum of its parts. To claim Muggeridge as a "contrarian journalist" there needs to be at least one |reliable source which covers this as more than a passing mention. In its current state, as I write this, it is a icdef|dictionary definition for a neologism. Neither form belongs in an encyclopaedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:D)

Comment: actually I was a journalist for 17 years and used to teach it at postgraduate level. Your comment on the article's talk page together with the article itself indicates that you believe it to be a genre. "Contrarianism" is simply a technique employed by most journalists throughout their careers and some journalists all the time - and this article is not about that technique. Also, please read the policies at  and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:VER)

Comment: This article looks like original research, and has no verifiability.  The references given are pretty much unrelated to the article (such as the definition, which we should note doesn't even mention journalism), or are used to reference very specific factoids and not the actual article.  The article is |synthesis and original research.  Beyond that, if this is so important to journalism, why isn't there some kind of meaningful reference from journalism textbooks or journals
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)