Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Rego


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Lindsay Rego

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced, Notability is questioned DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non notable senior civil servant. All gnews hits come from a single local publication.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Sodabottle. RFerreira (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. It would be helpful to know what material the nominator considers contentious. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the connection from DAIGIworld (only reference). The contentious was set by another user also. See the summary. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question. Which of the statements in the article do you consider contentious? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is your vote? Do what is good for you. I have answered it. Thanks.--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is who set contentious and I agree with that - Is DAIGIworld (only reference) a reputed publication in India?.   11:05, 6 April 2009  Mr.Z-bot (talk | contribs) m (3,966 bytes) (Unreferenced BLP) (undo) --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2010 (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.