Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reuben 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 after cleanup. Sandstein 21:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Reuben Singh

 * — (View AfD)

It looks like an attack page, but the subject seems to be fairly notable, so I didn't delete it outright under A6. Requesting comment here, but I suggest deletion without prejudice toward recreation. theProject 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC) *Speedy delete. THe way I read it, A6 doesnt specify that it applies only to nn subjects; "..Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject.." This meets that criterion, and then some. Delete without prejudice, and do it soon, its a giant WP:BLP violation.Hornplease 08:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (changed again). MER-C 10:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as an attack page. So tagged. MER-C 10:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: The attack version of this article was introduced by - I have since removed those contributions, no !vote on the article itself.  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 10:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Good point. Since the article in that version seems backed up by citations, and he seems to be the subject of several mainstream media reports, I suppose he meets WP:BIO; also, per recent ArbCom decisions, the page isnt mainly criticism, so it can stand. Changing my vote to Keep. Hornplease 11:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note also this.Hornplease 11:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep the cleaned-up version. I couldn't understand why people were saying it was no longer an attack page until I realized that User:Tell no lie had reverted Hornplease's improvements (removing the AfD notice in the process).  Just to be clear, I'm voting to keep this version of the article.  Admins should keep an eye on User:Tell no lie, who may have to be blocked if s/he doesn't learn Wikipedia norms. JamesMLane t c 09:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, A Train take the 20:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep; and watch for vandalism Not an attack; notable per WP:Bio; simply was vandalised. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think given the number of newspaper articles cited in the article, it should stay. He is clearly famous. Sam Blacketer 22:44, 15 December 2006 (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.