Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund ng

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edmund ng

Edmund ng (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was speedy-tagged as CSD A7. It doesn't have sources, but it does assert that Mr. Ng is the head of a Singaporean political party. It is left to AfD to evaluate the veracity and the noteworthiness of that claim. Delete, pending sources. Xoloz 20:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• No vote. This interview might be a helpful source. The article needs to have the photo removed (probably violates WP:FUC, as tagged), needs to have the external links removed and internal links added, and needs to resolve the apparent conflict of interest from the author. That being said, the subject may be notable. Placeholder account 23:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It doesn't assert that he's the head of a political party. It asserts he's the acting organizing secretary (whatever that is) of a party which has never won a seat in the Singaporean elections, although one member seems to hold a non-contested seat. Added: He simply doesn't pass WP:BIO as is. "Edmund Ng" is a common enough name for Ghits to be unreliable. --Charlene 01:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per no RS. In addition the use of commercial sites as 'refs' does not a happy undertow make! the_undertow ^talk 02:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  14:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 17 May 2007 (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.