Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Amarjit 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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Amarjit Singh[edit]

Delete: I think this is a prank. The purported websites have been registered by somebody else in the US, not the UK. I can't find any references by searching for "prince amarjit singh" or "ringos charity" or [1]. The article was created as a solo edit by the account and then vandalized or embellished as part of the prank by the known and repeatedly blocked vandal IP 194.154.22.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). See also the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony kenneth item above. Hu 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gosh, Two hundred million pounds would at least BUY one a write-up somewhere on the net Ruby 01:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly artsearchengine.com, while registered in the US, is registered to someone called Singh (KC Singh, not Amarjit) who gives a UK mobile phone (cellphone) number as a contact number. The website is up but just consists of a "coming soon" page. Both the other websites are also registered to a UK individual (Padma Singh, in Windsor, UK). (The location of a domain registrar doesn't say anything about the person registering it; tony-walton.me.uk is actually registered through Schlund in Germany, for example, and I'm UK-based). That's not enough verification for what looks like a complete load of tosh, though. Delete, along with Tony kenneth which looks strangely similar. Tonywalton | Talk 11:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as simply non-verifiable. --Lockley 19:21, 8 February 2006 (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.