Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayeti Singh

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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gayeti Singh

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

I Prodded this as no evidence of notability and fails WP:JOURNALIST Prod removed by author. Refs in no way indicate notability. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gayeti Singh should not be deleted as per the following stipulation of WP:JOURNALIST, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." In a bid to improve the wikipedia category of Indian journalists, it is imperative that we retain this entry as the concerned figure is an important voice in independent journalism in South Asia. Paste please refer to The Citizen (India) for additional details as to ascertain the notability of the work. Moreover, I am referring to the stipulation of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. A Google search of "Gayeti Singh" presents evidence of notability for such. I will add more references to the article Gayeti Singh to improve the quality of the same. Filmforum61 (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The tailored Wikiproject India media search returns nothing about this person, as is the case with Highbeam. The standard Google search returns just the usual social media links and links to primary sources, which just verify that the subject is a person going about their trade. No evidence of notability either to the WP:JOURNALIST or broader WP:BASIC criteria. AllyD (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AllyD May I direct you to the Google News Results for the given. There are multiple articles authored by the person that satisfy the criteria as determined for notability in WP:JOURNALIST. Wikiproject India media search and Highbeam are not the barometer by which we can judge as the search results are limited in scope to a handful of sources whereas Google news is a standardised and comprehensive search engine that can prove notability for journalists across all media. Filmforum61 (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Authored by the person is not relevant here: that is what every journalist does to earn their daily crust. What is needed here is articles about the person. AllyD (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Second the statement by AllyD.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. There are news articles by her, not about her. Anup [Talk] 03:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG.The subject is surely a journalist as evidenced from the numerous articles she had written but nothing is notable about her.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:44, 1 December 2016 (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.