summary of the afd debate negative votes delete the original editor was user ivygohnair so it was marked as a vanity article for violating wp auto mapetite strong delete ignorance of the rules is not a valid argument for keeping an article vyse neutral positive votes procedural nomination speedy a was applied but was contested and this warrants a further look i'm neutral for now even though this article doesn't seem to be colourburst comment question csd a is unremarkable people groups companies and websites is that the reason for the afd too according to wikipedia vanity guidelines as explained below an author's conflict of interest by itself is not a basis for deletion but lack of assertion of notability is edward wakelin it is true that i have come into the fray to defend ivy goh nair from speedy deletion and that her last page was actually uploaded by me i think if you want to apply the vanity label because one person edits the other and vice versa it would only be fair to examine each case on its own merit both user ivygohnair and user chandrannair are established figures in the field that is being discussed ie singapore literature and writing secondly it should be considered in their favour that they have used their own names and not fictitious names as user names if this had been the case the problem wouldn't have arisen therefore i think there is much merit in user edward wakelin remarks above and that an author's conflict of interest is by itself not a basis for deletion out by wikipedia chandrannair talk contribs comment let's be nice to newcomers as per wikipedia please do not bite the newcomers this seems like a case where newcomers not knowing the rules here an author of bestseller may be notable enough to get an article in an encyclopedia perhaps this biography needs some fixing as per wikipedia biographies of living persons deleting is probably unnecessary pfhlai i have read her book though i'm not from singapore and it's better than a lot of the stuff that makes it to the ny times best seller list the preceding unsigned comment was added by talk contribs new to all this in wikipedia i think the mood to delete is harsh this is a user who seems to have made a definite impact in a small place and is trying to popularise the creative energies of singapore let us be more forgiving besides it looks there is actual published reviews as testament to the work mcporpington mcporpington sorry i meant to add to my comment above that the article should not be deleted mcporpington mcporpington hi i am saddened to read such biting petty comments and suggestions about deleting this article this person has clearly contributed to singapore literature and has also been cited by others signed phillygal i did my military service in singapore and i love the country i vote to keep i do not see any conflict of interest herejean louis retrieved from