Exactly why this article should be deleted  Since some editors have deplorable difficulty understanding as ITAQALLAH laments but on the talk page never explains in detail how the content is in accordance with policy and ignores any policies that I may cite why this article deserves to be deleted I will once more explain now being very precise and exact so that you may be cleared of all doubts  The article in its postcensorsed state is in violation of WPBLP Let me quote from it   Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies especially    Neutral point of view NPOV  Verifiability  No original research  This article violates requirement number One Neutral point of view NPOV  Now for idiotic editors like those who childishly colour their usernames who will have difficulty comprehending how on earth this article violates NPOV owing to their idiocy which I hope Eugenics will fix one day let me quote section  from the NPOV page  Balance  When reputable sources contradict one another the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page work for balance that is describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner  It says describe the opposing viewpoints And where does this article do that  Rather than describe describe the opposing viewpoints it suppresses opposing viewpoints  This is why the article is biased censorsed and therefore must be deleted  I will be reinserting the PROD tag in  hours if no one can come up with an argument that justifies having a biased viewpoint or can explain why and how the describe the opposing viewpoints requirement is insignificant enough to be ignored