Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gautam Sanyal


 * 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   keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Gautam Sanyal

 * – ( View AfD View log )

being an elected local official does not guarantee notability per notability guidelines. Cloudz 679 16:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________
 * Gautam Sanyal is not an elected local or a national politician.
 * He is a member of the Indian Civil Service. The retirement age of a member of the civil service in India is 60 years old. Gautam Sanyal retired in 2011 as he turned 60 years old; however, he is the first civil servant or bureaucrat in India to head an Office of the Chief Minister of a state in India after retirement from his tenured service. (this is notability as first in recorded history).
 * Please read the following article then you will understand why he 'should have and has a' biography article in Wikipedia.
 * (http://202.144.14.20/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&show=archive&id=388572&catid=35&year=2011&month=11&day=2&Itemid=66)
 * (http://www.indianexpress.com/election-news/in-mayas-footsteps/880243).
 * (http://m.timesofindia.com/PDATOI/articleshow/10504166.cms)
 * (http://www.asianage.com/columnists/caught-loop-047) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.179.147 (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - A gnews search yields significant coverage in major Indian newspapers. Can be used to support and expand this article. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________
 * This is true. I asked my fried to start this article. However I am in process to expand the article. But everyone has to wait for some time because it will take time. The article is just now in its infancy. I am on process to develop it more. Please remove the tag for deletion from this article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.179.147 (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Mamata Banerjee All the 'find sources' GNews hits relate to the subject of the article, but none of the GBooks or GScholar ones do. Of the GNews hits, while many are passing mentions, quite a few, relating to controversy either about his original appointment to his current position (which does not seem to be automatically notable) or to its extension when he reached retirement age, are more substantial - but seem less concerned with the subject himself than with either with the precedents broken by his appointment or its extension or with Banerjee's insistence on appointing and then keeping him. In brief, he seems to have some notability under {{WP:GNG|]] - enough to justify a mention on Wikipedia - but all inherited from Banerjee. As a complicating factor, many of the GBooks hits and almost all of the GScholar ones seem to relate to a biochemist with AstraZeneca whose research publications would probably meet WP:PROF should anyone ever create an article on him. PWilkinson (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

_______________________________ 
 * I think there is no need to merge an individual biography to an another persons biography. There is the need to have a single source, legible biography article of 'Gautam Sanyal'. There is a reason for notability and why I created this article which many have either ignored or just skipping off. This is the notability as I mentioned with sources "The post of the Secretary to the Chief Minister of West Bengal" in the Chief Minister Office in West Bengal since India's Independence in 1947 has been held by officers of IAS cadre (All India Civil Service, Group A). However, Gautam Sanyal [officer of CSS cadre (Central Civil Service, Group A)] is the first one in recorded history to break this legacy and become the Secretary to CM.
 * The point is - civil servants of central service usually go for deputation to an another state for few months or a single year for experience but not permanent posting. He likely is the first CSS officer, the first non IAS officer and the first retired civil servant who hold the post of Secretary. The post is considered to be the most powerful in the state of West Bengal. However, also civil servants in the state and even India has considered Sanyal to have more power and control than the Chief Secretary of the State. New poster boy of India’s babudom/civil service — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.186.242 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 11:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Question; in the bad old days, senior civil servants were awarded state honours; Order of the Indian Empire/Order of the Star of India. Did India continue with this sort of thing? If so, what awards has he received? Is he covered in a Who's Who - style reference work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barney the barney barney (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)   
 * Delete The argument for keep strikes me after straining for notability through a particular rare but not really notable career structure.  DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * DO NOT Delete DGG is wrong. The article "Gautam Sanyal" is a biography article. The article should exist and live by the virtue of the notability that he is one of the senior civil servants in India who is the most important officer in a state which the State Chief Minister has fought for from many of the civil servants who are allotted in the state and worked for whole their life who did not get the position he serves now.
 * The reason why there is not a "career structure" in the article is because this is all the information I have of the person (I should point out that it is not because he has limited or no notable career experience and structure). Hence, the article has limited information with credible references. However, I am working to get as much information of the article on the person. You should see in coming days more references and information in the article.
 * You should note that the article has references. I should point out that there are many articles (but not many and not all) in wiki which does not even have a reference and an external link but solely exists on the virtue and principle that the person is important in the state or the head of the government or bureaucracy. I think people should move out of double standards and search for more information on web. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.191.174 (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)  — 59.178.191.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: I agree that the subject does not seem to qualify under WP:POLITICIAN, nor - of course - do civil servants get automatic passes through WP:BIO. However, the Times of India and The Statesman are impeccable sources, and their mention of the subject does, I believe, pass the "significant detail" threshold of the GNG.  Whether his career has been dependent on Banerjee, or that he hasn't garnered GScholar hits (huh?) is quite irrelevant.  Ravenswing  09:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Last relist


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity Talk Contribs  11:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Ravenswing. It's hard to set those sources aside, though I do note that the coverage I'm seeing is not as in depth as it probably should be. It is a bit thin, but I think it's enough to Keep. UltraExactZZ {{sup| Said }}~ Did 14:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Ultraexactzz and Ravenswing.--Varghese Jacob (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the top civil servants, if not the top civil servant, in a state. Clearly notable in my eyes. I really don't think we'd be having this discussion for an official in a similar position in Britain, Australia, Canada or the United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Very likely, actually. Let's take California, for instance.  While Gov. Brown hasn't appointed a chief of staff, his predecessor's chief of staff, Susan Kennedy, doesn't have a Wikipedia article.  Ravenswing  00:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, that's not what I said was it? What I said was, if an article existed it would be unlikely to be deleted. We all know we don't have articles on absolutely everybody of note. Wikipedia is an ongoing project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Err, that's not what you said; you said that you didn't think there'd even be a discussion. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but that there isn't an article for Kennedy means that no one considered her enough of note to have created one.  Given that, it would be entirely imaginable for people to consider such an article to fall short of notability, in the same fashion that it's quite possible that AfDs of non-Anglo-American subjects stem from breaches of guidelines or policies, rather than from less savory motives.  Ravenswing  15:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please reread what I actually say before you misinterpret me. I was obviously talking about AfD discussions (this being an AfD discussion and all that), not about creation of articles. Are you really saying that every person in history worthy of having an article has already had one created about them? Really? I don't think so. We may as well just end the project now then. It's obviously completed and we're all wasting our time! Come on... -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: (scratches his head) And I am obviously talking about AfD discussions. If you'd like to argue for the sake of arguing, no doubt there are venues you can do that - ones, certainly, where you can continue the straw man arguments - but this theoretical flight of fancy has already run too far afield.  Ravenswing  18:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm scratching my head here trying to understand your replies. Nothing that you have written here supports your "very likely, actually" statement above. Yes, it's very likely that nobody has yet got round to writing an article about Susan Kennedy, but it is certainly not very likely that anyone would nominate such an article for deletion, which was Necrothesp's point. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If neither of you believe that "Given that, it would be entirely imaginable for people to consider such an article to fall short of notability" could possibly have anything to do with the deletion process, I can't help you.  Ravenswing  06:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, you've still failed to grasp the point that just because an article has not yet been created does not mean that if an article was created it would be likely to be nominated for deletion. The two are completely unrelated. There was no article on anyone until one was created - they didn't just all spring into existence fully-formed at the exact time Wikipedia was created. There are still many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of clearly notable people who do not yet have articles written about them. If those articles were created then nobody would seriously dream of nominating many of them for deletion. The argument that nobody has yet created an article about someone so they're obviously not particularly notable just doesn't hold water. That was my point. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2012 (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.