Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saw Phaik Hwa

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The result was withdrawn. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw Phaik Hwa[edit]

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

Wasn't quite sure what to do with this one. As it stands, is a negatively-worded, barely-sourced BLP that comes close to an attack page. But as speedy is only for unsourced BLPs that are attack pages, I couldn't nominate for a speedy. I think she's semi-notable in the sense that she was CEO of Singapore's national rail company, but as it stands the article needs to go as a negative BLP. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, though I agree with all of the nom's comments. Horribly written and negative, but I think she's notable. I found a number of references on a quick google search. Creator seems interested in improving article. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that she's notable. I think we need a total start from scratch here though, this is a serious WP:BLP issue. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken out the bulk of the negative, and some of the sentences that didn't translate easily into English. I don't have the full picture of the SMRT but I think the article can stand. The creator might have shot themselves in the foot by trying to put up a negative article only to have it become a neutral article Wikipelli ^Talk 23:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Wonder if the old versions should be rev-deleted. As it stands I'm happy to withdraw this nomination — but urge any passing admin to see if the article's history can legitimately be revdel'd. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:22, 6 April 2012 (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.