Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin

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. ✗plicit 04:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin

[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)

Filled with primary sources and dubious claims, this BLP appears heavily edited by either COI or the subject. I invoke WP:TNT, not notability, as basis for deletion. Ifnord (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Questionable notability, a lot of content here, like about the criminal allegations, is far from neutral and some of it, such as the material on the British royal family, has nothing to do with him. And he is called "Lord Sayyid"? It's amazing it's been on Wikipedia for 14 years without being challenged in an AFD. Too bad it was de-PROD'd 12 years ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is the first AfD of 2022 for me. I think I need to go and lie down. Wow! Mccapra (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT just blatant POV. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The sources are not convincing for a pass of WP:GNG. Even the best of them (#1, the Star detox story) only mentions him in passing. And in any case WP:TNT and WP:PERP also apply. How has such a bad article survived for so long? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think TNT would be quite suitable, since the COI issue is long stale by now, so it doesn't help to have it in the history. There is a risk that some well meaning individual might restore a lot of the stuff on the page currently, if it's left in the history, which would be an issue. Mako001 (C) (T) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 07:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatantly promotional with no real significance shown. Tame (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2022 (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.