Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr.Sohinder Bir 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 userfy to User:Sohinder by {{user|JzG}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

=[[Dr.Sohinder Bir Singh]]=

:{{la|Dr.Sohinder Bir Singh}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr.Sohinder Bir Singh}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Dr.Sohinder Bir Singh}})

Contested BLPPROD without adding sources. Non-notable poet. A single reference in GHits (Chandigarh Tribune) out of 6 results, single GNews hit (passing mention in Chandigarh Tribune), single GBooks hit (a transcript of papers presented at a folklore conference), no GScholar hits. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC, and WP:AUTHOR. GregJackP (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete: No indication that awards are significant, no sources fails WP:BIO. Toddst1 (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete — No sources causes article to fail WP:BIO. mono 23:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Unsourced and no evidence of notability from web searches, plus apparent WP:AUTOBIO. My reading of WP:BLPPROD# Objecting is that you're not allowed to remove the {{tl|prod blp}} template without adding sources and the nominator could have just reinstated it instead of bringing it to AfD. Qwfp (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:*Comment - that's my view too, but there apparently is a difference of opinion about that among both editors and admins. So since there is such disagreement, it is easier to bring it to an AfD. I'm not inclined to get into an ongoing edit war over a BLPPROD, though I will state that if it is just like a PROD, that can be contested by anyone without adding references, it is pretty worthless. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2010 (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.