Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atma 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 No delete votes--JForget 00:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Atma Singh

Atma Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Vanity article, almost entirely written by subject. Only link also added by subject. RolandR (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete None of the sources are reliable, and the article reeks of vanispamicantspell. Delete the pics too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Relata refero's sources, seems to be notable indeed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. TenPoundHammer's likely right, but I don't feel I can truly judge this one myself - I don't see anything that stands out as true encyclopedic notability. Certainly the tone of it is promotional.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep The article needs massive rewriting, but the man is very very notable. Relata refero (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• If he were truly notable, then an article about him would have been started and edited by someone other than himself. Whether or not there is an article about Singh, the entire content of the current article should go. RolandR (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The fact that he started the article is independent of whether he is truly notable. In this case, he is truly notable, and feel free to cut in down drastically.. But he's notable, and there is content there that is salvageable. Relata refero (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite if need be to maintain neutrality. Pichpich (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The accomplishments and references add up to notability. Note that the article has been cut back to a stub; earlier versions give a better idea of his achievements. --Eastmain (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sources identified establish his notability. Has been stubbed so a NPOV/non COI version can be written. Davewild (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This article is notable, good amount of sources, but needs to be totally rewritten. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:35, 7 February 2008 (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.