Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adnan Zaidi

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 speedy delete. db-spam - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Zaidi

Can find no evidence that this person even exists, nevermind notability. see relevant google searches: [1] [2] Running On Brains 19:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - Copied directly from [3] ceranthor 20:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Link is a wikipedia mirror: "The original description for this topic was automatically generated from the Wikipedia article "Adnan Zaidi" licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License". -Running On Brains 20:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized that, my apologies. ceranthor 20:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Anyway, the point is that there is no established notability. ceranthor 20:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable. Resume is laughably implausible. "Dual PhDs from New York": which school? Many universities won't give you a second PhD. "May be considered for a Nobel Prize": great, although this is intrinsically unverifiable, since they don't announce these things beforehand. Most of his Google hits are wiki mirrors, most of them hilariously include the "being considered for deletion" warning. Hairhorn (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 per Hairhorn; fails the common sense test. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, and db-spam would work for me, but it would be nice to nail down the db-hoax if we can for the next time this shows up. - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get you. You agree with the speedy, but take it off the article. Process for the sake of process much? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 01:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more than happy to ignore the consensus or lack of it at AfD and enforce my will on the article, as soon as I'm elected god-king of Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only person with that name I could find in Scopus or Google Scholar was in a different subject, and was way below the notability level in any case. DGG (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already thrown in my two cents, just an update to say there are several old versions of this article that are now redirect pages, they can go in the bin with the main page:

I really can't believe the gall of this article. The Nobel thing is particularly funny: there is no Nobel for Math, Computer Science or Engineering. What Nobel is he gonna get? Literature? Hairhorn (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article creator has the wrong spelling, we've still got him nailed for over-the-top promotionalism ~~and persistent re-creation~~; does anyone have a problem with a speedy db-spam deletion? - Dank (push to talk) 04:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no so much recreation as scattershot spamming. All of his different articles were created Jan 2 2008. He was not on wikipedia before, and he hasn't been since. Speedy as spam, if not hoax. Hairhorn (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2009 (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.