Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atma Singh
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)