Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Thuraisingam

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. Rewrite can occur outside of AfD Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Thuraisingam[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources used in this article is highly misleading, as it does not actually involve the individual itself on what these news outlets were writing about.

It also does not help that there are some severe conflict of interest violations going on in this article by its creator, a single purpose account. The article was initially already rejected at articles for creation for failing WP:GNG, but they ignored it anyway and decided to create it themselves exactly a year later after making a few edits to reach the edit count.

It also involves constant additions of puffery, copyvio images and subsequently removing COI tags in response. The very first reference literally goes to their website. There is also another single purpose account, which could possibly also hint at sockpuppetry. Otterslort (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – this article is a mess, and I agree with the nominator that the vast majority of the 79 (!) references are probably worthless for notability purposes. Nonetheless, I find it difficult to discount sources like [1] [2] [3], all of which come from reliable Singaporean press outlets and seem to give Thuraisingam substantial coverage as opposed to trivial mentions. That's probably enough to meet the GNG. While one could make an argument for blowing the article up and starting over, a better idea might be to start a discussion at WP:COIN and/or reduce the article to a neutrally-written stub. Ultimately, deletion is not cleanup, although the article is sorely in need of it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep as there exists significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (e.g. TNP, Today, Straits Times). There should still be enough information for an article after pruning the passing mentions and primary sources, but I'm not opposed to a WP:TNT considering the suspicions of conflict-of-interest editing and sockpuppetry. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Extraordinary Writ and KN2731 but needs a rewrite.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.