Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amar Singh (activist)


 * 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. Setting aside the blocked nominator and other disruptive parties, there appears to be a consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Amar Singh (activist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Although this article is sourced, it strikes me that it is intended to be, or very prone to being steered towards becoming, a promotional piece.

There are countless issues with this article which lead me to suspect that User:Sk1728 may have a close relationship with the subject:


 * Amar Singh is the founder of an Art Gallery in London. The gallery which was on Penton Street in London closed in April 2019. User:Sk1728 insists on reinstating the name of this gallery into the article lead with the edit summary "The gallery is an impt part of his career". I suggest that this is for promotional reasons. The gallery was/is not so noteworthy that it commands its own article on wikipedia. There are thousands of commercial art galleries in the United Kingdom and wider world which in themselves do not confer notability onto their founders.


 * Vishvjit Singh was a first cousin 1x removed of Amar Singh. User:Sk1728 keeps reinstating that Vishvjit Singh was an uncle, which I believe is deliberately intended to mislead.


 * Being a member of an erstwhile Kapurthalan Royal Family of India is mentioned twice in the article. Mr Singh's great-great-great-great-grandfather was Raja Nihal Singh Sahib Bahadur of Kapurthala (no article). It seems rather tenuous to include the royal connection in the article lead - again probably intended to play up the link. Two external sources refer to Amar Singh as a Prince. I have doubts as to whether this is a formal or accurate title, it could be self-styled. Bikrama Singh and Pratap Singh of Kapurthala are more closely related to Raja Nihal Singh, but neither of them are styled as "Princes".


 * User:Sk1728 wrote in the article that Mr Singh has spoken at the United States Congress, which on further research turned out to be the Congressional Hispanic Leadership Institute's Annual Future Leaders Conference - probably deliberate weasel words. Copyrighted images from this event were uploaded to Flickr under incorrect licenses by an account called Amar Singh and added to this article (now since removed due to copyright issues).


 * A pledge to donate $5m worth of art to museums by 2025 is mentioned. As far as I can tell, less than $10,000 of art has been donated to date - promotional.


 * I have received a warning from User:Sk1728: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Amar Singh (activist), you may be blocked from editing." when all I have done is try to add balance and neutrality to the article, and to remove assertions which are evidently untrue, or intended to mislead.

The only claims to fame that I can see here are being listed in Forbes 30 Under 30 - Europe - Art & Culture in 2019 (there are many individuals on these lists who don't have wikipedia articles), and some public comments on LGBT+ rights in India, which all told do not add up to notability in my view - Daiaespera (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

*Comment User Sk1728 has attempted repeatedly to have the fact that Singh did not in fact graduate Harvard off his page. Most articles "about" Singh go out of their way to mention the "Harvard graduate" - Deliberate false self promotion. Forbes has removed Harvard from Singh's profile in the 30 under 30. Mr Singh had claimed to have a "Bachelor of Arts/Science" form Harvard. As discovered, he does not. Before: After:  It is clear from the above that Forbes and others are suspicious of the false self promotion. To note, no other 30 under 30 recipients who had education listed have had their education removed by Forbes. $100 million 30,000 square feet "hotel" project was claimed to be in the works by Singh in a 2019 Vanity Fair article by Andrew Bullock, who has written over 30% of Singh's articles. No such art project came up. Rather, the square footage appears to match that of an actual builder on Golden Square, but neither Singh's name nor "Curated" have been associated with it, except for in two "articles" in June of 2019 for/about Singh. - Promotional. NOTE: While the above is true, Forbes has, as above, edited the "profile" and removed the false claim of being a Harvard graduate. Furthermore, the public comments he claims to have made are not backed up with any evidence of presence in India. Prior to 2017 there was only one article, in 2009 in the Times of India, in which Singh had stated he was developing a movie script. Also important to note is that nowhere in that article was there any mention of the upcoming order on homosexuality in India, which for someone who 2017 onwards has claimed in every article to have been a "big part" of the movement in India, you would assume the interview would mention it, not just about Prince Mavendra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123FactCheck (talk • contribs) 04:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just a quick note, that fear of it becoming promotional, or having problems with a specific editor's contributions, is not merit for AFD. I highly suggest repurposing this AfD to reflect policy concerns versus just it's "promotion-y". That can be fixed if the subject meets, for example, WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment A sockpuppet investigation has been opened for two editors related to this subject: Sockpuppet investigations/Sk1728. Missvain (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Daiaespera should also be flagged for a Sockpuppet investigation as this user has written extensively about and if you review their edits has even reverted back edits of their own to original text which is suspicious. Regarding the above flagged points from Daiaespera there are serious issues which might be ground for cyber attack or a legal investigation. The key points being as follows:

Daiaespera states "The gallery was/is not so noteworthy that it commands its own article on wikipedia. There are thousands of commercial art galleries in the United Kingdom and wider world which in themselves do not confer notability onto their founders." - There are thousands of galleries but gallery mention does not have it's own article, it is simply mentioned on his page. The gallery appears in many articles and magazines globally so arguably it is noteworthy while other galleries do not receive the same level of press coverage.

Daiaespera states "Vishvjit Singh was a first cousin 1x removed of Amar Singh. User:Sk1728 keeps reinstating that Vishvjit Singh was an uncle, which I believe is deliberately intended to mislead" - It is a well known fact in Asian cultures that elders are referred to as Aunty or Uncle. Daiaespera states this assertion is "intended to mislead" but does not clarify on which grounds. If Wikipedia does not support the statement of a relative being an uncle due to western cultural positions, this should be removed rather than grounds for deletion in order to clean up the article.

Daiaespera states "Being a member of an erstwhile Kapurthalan Royal Family of India is mentioned twice in the article. Mr Singh's great-great-great-great-grandfather was Raja Nihal Singh Sahib Bahadur of Kapurthala (no article). It seems rather tenuous to include the royal connection in the article lead - again probably intended to play up the link. Two external sources refer to Amar Singh as a Prince. I have doubts as to whether this is a formal or accurate title, it could be self-styled. Bikrama Singh and Pratap Singh of Kapurthala are more closely related to Raja Nihal Singh, but neither of them are styled as "Princes"" - Again this borders on an online attack as I can find no article where refers to himself as a "prince" and often the press play up loose royal connections to attain more readers, Daiaespera suggestion here can be interpreted as if  is control of the press about him or is the author of articles about himself, neither of which have been proven

Daiaespera states "User:Sk1728 wrote in the article that Mr Singh has spoken at the United States Congress, which on further research turned out to be the Congressional Hispanic Leadership Institute's Annual Future Leaders Conference - probably deliberate weasel words. Copyrighted images from this event were uploaded to Flickr under incorrect licenses by an account called Amar Singh and added to this article (now since removed due to copyright issues). - "probably deliberate weasel words" is not a constructive phrasing and again highlights a potential cyber attack on . The points about Flickr about to be accurate and no image should be used without proper licensing but yet again this is phrased in a way to attack rather than constructively flagging a copyright violation. It appears the image which was a potential copyright violation has subsequently been changed in line with Wikipedia's copyright policy.

123FactCheck states "User Sk1728 has attempted repeatedly to have the fact that Singh did not in fact graduate Harvard off his page. Most articles "about" Singh go out of their way to mention the "Harvard graduate" - Deliberate false self promotion. Forbes has removed Harvard from Singh's profile in the 30 under 30. Mr Singh had claimed to have a "Bachelor of Arts/Science" form Harvard. As discovered, he does not." - After review no version of had a claim the subject graduated from Harvard but instead attended classes, it is clear from editorial revisions on wikipedia it was then clarified further that  did not graduate. 123FactCheck is claiming "deliberate false self promotion" yet I can find no article where has specifically stated he graduated from Harvard. Once again this falls on the responsibility of the journalists and cannot control what the press write, whether false, in error or truth whereas 123FactCheck is suggesting exactly that - control of the press.

123FactCheck goes onto state "It is clear from the above that Forbes and others are suspicious of the false self promotion. To note, no other 30 under 30 recipients who had education listed have had their education removed by Forbes." - again this is not a constructive comment on a wikipedia page proposed for deletion for two reasons: 1. 123FactCheck is claiming that Forbes, the multi national news organisation, are suspicious when after revision Mr. Singh's Forbes 30 profile, perhaps a suggestion of Mr. Singh or Forbes Staff, he still remains a Forbes 30 recipient and on May 13th Forbes published an article on Mr. Singh. 2. 123FactCheck statement "To note, no other 30 under 30 recipients who had education listed have had their education removed by Forbes." is not corroborated or supported. There are thousands of Forbes 30 under 30 recipients so is 123FactCheck suggesting they went through each one to cross check against whether Mr. Singh's was the only profile to have an education section revised - again ground for a cyber attack. Having looked through some Forbes 30 profiles myself, it does not appear they have a section for 'did not graduate' which could be a reasonable explanation as to why Mr. Singh's profile featured the Harvard University name. In any case, a fair and balanced investigation would have to be conducted rather than unsupported blanket statements such as 123FactCheck stating out of thousands "no other 30 under 30 recipients who had education listed have had their education removed by Forbes."

Daiaespera states "A pledge to donate $5m worth of art to museums by 2025 is mentioned. As far as I can tell, less than $10,000 of art has been donated to date - promotional." - The nature of a pledge by 2025 is clearly not an immediate donation. Having reviewed the articles cited on it is also clear other donations have been made. In a Vanity Fair article three artworks are stated as being donated 1. the $10,000 portrait to Harvard, 2, A six figure work by artist Maria Berrio to LACMA and 3. An artwork by artist Howard Tangye to Harvard. Point 3's donation within this article is referenced by the head of Harvard University's Hutchins Center Henry Louis Gates - Again this comment potentially falls within the grounds of a cyber attack

123FactCheck states "A $100 million 30,000 square feet "hotel" project was claimed to be in the works by Singh in a 2019 Vanity Fair article by Andrew Bullock, who has written over 30% of Singh's articles. [3] No such art project came up. Rather, the square footage appears to match that of an actual builder on Golden Square, but neither Singh's name nor "Curated" have been associated with it, except for in two "articles" in June of 2019 for/about Singh. - Promotional" - this was only recently added to page which is evident through the wikipedia revision history on May 13 2021 by 123FactCheck who has only made edits about  and could well possibly be working will or be the same person as Daiaespera - it is important to note 123FactCheck profile has been flagged for a Sockpuppet investigation.

Daiaespera states "I have received a warning from User:Sk1728: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Amar Singh (activist), you may be blocked from editing." when all I have done is try to add balance and neutrality to the article, and to remove assertions which are evidently untrue, or intended to mislead." - It is reasonable to say Daiaespera is not at all neutral or balanced. Arguable Daiaespera edits and comments are the ones intended to mislead. This is evident from Daiaespera next comments "The only claims to fame that I can see here are being listed in Forbes 30 Under 30 - Europe - Art & Culture in 2019 (there are many individuals on these lists who don't have wikipedia articles), and some public comments on LGBT+ rights in India, which all told do not add up to notability in my view - Daiaespera (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)" - This is not balanced and seems inaccurate as it appears the press have regularly written about  since 2017. Editorworldwide14 (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Three of the points above were added by another user 123FactCheck so I have corrected this where appropriate. As for claims of a cyber attack, the initial article about Amar Singh was a hugely biased promo piece which contravened countless wikipedia policies, I merely wish for the article to be cleaned up, written in a neutral tone, and for inaccuracies to be weeded out, OR if the community deem this article not to pass notability criteria, to be purged from the encyclopedia. That is not for me to decide, but rather up to community consensus or the admins. Daiaespera (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The references to reliable sources now present in the article and devoting significant coverage show that this person is notable. If some of the article content is promotional or inaccurate, then correct that through the normal editing process or through Dispute resolution if necessary. If anyone has evidence of COI, take it to the Conflict of interest noticeboard. Deletion is not the correct outcome. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

In Line with constant cyber attacks Daiaespera struck my above line by line issues with the edits they made. In line with Wikipedia's policy of fair and open discussions I ask Daiaespera not to limit my free speech and contributions but instead act in the spirit of fairness and in line with Wikipedia's policy. Daiaespera act striking my text, which can be viewed in the revision history by wikipedia editors further adds to my suggestion a Sockpuppet investigation should be opened for Daiaespera and possibly a more serious investigation as Wikipedia are required by law to help authorities with cyber attack cases. Cullen328 perhaps you can help with this matter.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Despite the drama around this article - which needs to stop - the subject and the sources presented passes our GNG. Missvain (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - This AfD is about whether the subject passes Wikipedia's notability criteria to have a stand alone article within the encyclopedia. Nothing else matters. There are enough independent and reliable sources referenced in the article to satisfy WP:GNG. Echoing the requests of my fellow editors above, the drama needs to stop. -- A Rose Wolf  18:42, 28 May 2021 (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.