Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Prison Service


 * 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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Singapore Prison Service

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unsouced page, all either original research or promotion. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 08:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: it's a notable entity IMO, although the article is in a bad way with an over-use of promotional wording and fluff. Institutions managed include Changi Prison which is notable in its own right. I think it needs a scalpel taking to the content, that's all. Shritwod (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Added: I note that a lot of recent editing has been done by IP, which is WPP in Hong Kong (a marketing company). Before that a user called edited the page but was subsequently blocked. However, the page updated by that user as of 12 December 2012‎ might be viable as a stub? Shritwod (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Most of the text, from "History" to the end of "Organisation Structure", seems to be a direct copy or close paraphrase of 1, 2, and 3, which are asserted to be in copyright. Alexrexpvt (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject of the article is notable, I agree the article can be improved.If there are copyright questions the wrong part have to be deleted.User:Lucifero4


 * Keep The subject is notable enough, and there are plenty of sources about it (see here for an example) Instead of a deletion, how about adding maintenance tags on it and work from there?--Lionratz (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree it is a notable and noteworthy entity. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2013 (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.