Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary M. Seward

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 of the debate was delete. Vote count is something like 17d-6k. The best argument for inclusion was VegaDark's evidence, but it appears to have been adequately addressed by Kinu. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zachary M. Seward

non-notable biography Grocer 01:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Notable college journalist. — Adrian Lamo ·· 01:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete writer for college newspaper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: College newspapers with circulations of 5000+ are still notable publications. — Adrian Lamo ·· 01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Starblind. Royboycrashfan 02:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notableWickethewok 05:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The average reporter in your local daily paper (which most likely has a circulation greater than 5,000) is non-notable, even though the newspaper is, and the same goes for college paper journalists, even if they did manage to get lucky and score a byline in the WSJ. (IIRC, the Summers resignation wasn't really a shock as of the date of the article, anyway.) --Kinu ^t/_c 05:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. dbtfz^talk 05:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If we have issues with the 5000+ circulation guideline for writers, we should reconsider it. I've always thought it's a bit low, but it's purportedly consensus. — Adrian Lamo ·· 06:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - 528 google hits, even including his middle initial. That's a lot more than the average college journalist is going to get. Some fairly interesting claims to notability, and Wikipedia policy says 5000+ whether we like it or not. Also written several articles for forbes.com. I don't particularly agree with the 5000+ guideline either but until we change that policy we should probably adhere to it. VegaDark 07:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • All the Forbes articles were from the online edition of forbes.com only, not the print magazine. Also, they were written in June to August 2005, which leads me to believe that it was a part of their summer internship program, the duties of which would include writing a few articles for web release anyway. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. I can't find evidence that the subject's college newspaper has a circulation over 5,000. (It claims a readership in excess of that, but roommates would share a copy.) --Metropolitan90 08:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Adrian Lamo. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 10:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Metropolitan90 Cursive 13:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Notable college journalist" is an oxymoron. GWO
• Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 14:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Adrian. The Harvard Crimson's coverage of the Summers controversies played a significant role in Summers' resignation; therefore, subject of article is also clearly notable as participant in newsworthy event. Monicasdude 14:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu.--Isotope23 17:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Adrian Lamo Jcuk 20:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• No doubt, he is a talented young journalist and may well merit an article one day. However, for mine he isn't notable enough to warrant an article as yet. Delete.
• Delete He was the writer of a major event but I think it would be best to mention his name in the Summers controveries rather than give him a seperate article. Delete as NN. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Most college-paper reporters -- indeed, most newspaper reporters -- are not notable, if they have no prominence or recognition other than the fact that they report on notable stories. However, in Seward's case, his reporting was in itself part of the Summers story, which I think raises his profile above the usual. MCB 02:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I hear what y'all are saying, but I don't see individual reporters at this level of notability as warranting separate articles. Give him a couple years to get some real bylines. Herostratus 06:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He's a college journalist, nowhere near notable, and I refuse to let blind adherence to a guideline trump common sense. --Calton | Talk 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Calton, Avalon 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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.