Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayanhya Roy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. W.marsh 15:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sayanhya Roy
Google kills off any chance of notability[1].
- Delete as non-notable. JackO'Lantern 08:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, regular contributor to notable print publication. Lankiveil 11:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
- Extremely weak keep, vague sense of notability. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Really doesn't satisfy WP:BIO, in my view. PJM 12:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - we have an 'average professor' rule, this would appear to be an 'average journalist'. Contributing to a notable newspaper doesn't make you notable (in the same way that working as a researcher for the University of Cambridge doesn't make you automatically notable), only if a sufficient proportion of average readers would recognise the byline do they become notable in my opinion. Average Earthman 13:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. There is no "average professor" rule (it was proposed, but never came close to consensus). No "average journalist" rule, no "average actor" rule, no "average King of France" rule, either (or I'd get to delete Louis the Indolent, remembered for doing nothing during his reign). Appears to meet the notability standard for published writers. Monicasdude 13:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Reads like autobiography. - Andre Engels 15:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity. Wickethewok 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable and vanity. Sandstein 17:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability is not a trickle-down effect, and writing for a notable paper does not make you pass WP:BIO automatically as well. And Average Earthman is right, in that as compared to other writers for the paper, I see no evidence that readers would recognize the byline. --Kinu t/c 19:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Jud. There's a vague sense of delete here :) - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not yet notable enough Dlyons493 Talk 21:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable journalist, per Monicasdude - I would love to see similar articles for all NYT contributors, for instance. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I doubt you would really. Do you have any idea how many of them there are? And how trivial and boring most of their work really is? The New York Times don't even bother making it possible to click on the byline and see all articles by the journalist, so they don't seem to think it's very interesting either. Average Earthman 00:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not saying I'd read it straight through like a book - I'd just love to have it available when reading the paper Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think the standard we should use is Google matches - or something like that. In this case, it was barely two pages - including Wikipedia. I've written for my student newspaper at my university - about a dozen movie reviews in two years - and I have a unique name - and I, too, have exactly two google pages about me (or rather, of my reviews). Doesn't mean I deserve a Wiki entry. JackO'Lantern 00:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I doubt you would really. Do you have any idea how many of them there are? And how trivial and boring most of their work really is? The New York Times don't even bother making it possible to click on the byline and see all articles by the journalist, so they don't seem to think it's very interesting either. Average Earthman 00:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 03:50, 23 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.
