Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. B. 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 05:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

G. B. Singh

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability not established per WP:BIO. Non-notable Sikh extremist in comparison to more notable ones like Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale or Inderjit Singh Reyat. This particular Singh's only claim to fame is a polemical book attacking Mohandas Gandhi, a book that has largely been dismissed as partisan junk by the academic mainstream. All of the sources "cited" in this article are from religious extremist websites and some defense blog somewhere. The wiki article on a topic related to this subject, William Francis Doherty, (an engineer who Singh claims was murdered by Gandhians and then the incident covered up by Gandhi) has been deleted on lack of notability/reliability grounds. Meanstheatre (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Meanstheatre (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. His books meet WP:BK and he himself meets WP:AUTHOR.  His entry and the entries about his books appear to have become, from time to time, battlegrounds for POV warring.  I am not completely familiar with the arguments used in the edit warring, and will only note that he and his books are notable and that edit warring has no place in the project. Qworty (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:AUTHOR.  The Mi ke •Wassup doc? 20:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, I cleaned the article up a bit and removed some puffery and unsourced bit. It appears that he's known for his book, which generally received poor reviews, and that he was grandfathered after a change in US Army policy and allowed to retain his articles of faith. In regard to the latter, the sources appear to all go back to http://www.sikhnn.com. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I am sorta on the fence with this one which leads me to say keep. --Kumioko (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The first book is definitely notable (arguments that it's partisan junk notwithstanding), the second more borderline but plausibly notable. And there are enough different things here to prevent this from being a case of WP:BIO1E. So I think he squeaks through on WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2011 (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.