Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Hamid (Manipuri Poet)


 * 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 d e lete. east. 718 at 00:17, December 23, 2007

Abdul Hamid (Manipuri Poet)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominated to AfD on behalf of User:AWDRacer, who is not familiar with the process, I declined the original speedy because of the inherent difficulty in gaging assertions of importance on a poet, especially if they operate outside the regions better covered by Internet. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete added by &mdash; Coren (talk) as a hand for AWDRacer Thanks to Coren's help, I am nominating the Abdul Hamid (Manipuri Poet) article as an article worth deleting. The following is an exact replica of what can be found on the discussion page and this clearly illustrates my thoughts and feelings over what I think is a fake article: Aeja1370 along with other IPs at his disposal has been consistently reviving this exact article back from what could've been dead. If speedy deletion tags are added, they are removed by him/her or any number of his sockpuppet accounts. I have previously flagged this article for speedy deletion and now I've decided to flag it for spamming/advertisement. A simple Google search will reveal that none of the important details that distinctively indicate that the person in this article exist; no such person on Google with that name with that birthyear and place WHO has written a book titled "Sakyeng Mingsenda (The Mirror) in 2004. In fact, there's absolutely NO indication that such a person even exists despite the fact that the original author(s) claim he is "dearer to the literary world". It seems important for the author that this article be kept alive for no known exterior reason for a "famous" person who cannot be found on a quick Google search. If one had time, they will conclusively argue that this article could be intended to make a mockery out of Wikipedia. I have written some notes to whom I believe are administrators but they have done nothing about it as of yet. AWDRacer (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - as is article fails WP:BLP. I say weak delete because as per Coren's concern I feel this article would have benefited from input from editors with access to local sources. The article is a biography and according to policy should cite sources.  Sting_au   Talk  23:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I understand that it's an apparent biography of a person, if the so-called biography has no sources whatsoever, any Average joe can place erroneous, misleading, and possibly libellous information on pages. At the same time, this Joe can exaggerate his personal exploits, downplay or deny or withhold his humiliating points. This Joe can also make himself to be much bigger than he really is; while he may be working as a menial job at a firm at the day time, he can write himself as a leading figure of authority who has accomplished much, all with the luxury of having no sources. These claims, thus, must not be accepted if there are no sources. For all we know, the original author of this article could be writing an article about himself. If you think an article like this should be allowed, how would you feel if I decided to write an article about you or myself as a person using nothing but baseless claims? In that I could describe myself as a genius; the next Einstein, or a charismatic military leader; the next Napoleon Bonaparte, while I describe you as a lowly henchmen who follows orders, gets humiliated in public before shortly being exiled from the country. I can do that because these are the baseless claims I am talking about with absolutely no evidence of truth within it. While all this information is clearly toward my benefit, I believe Wikipedia has no room for something like this. Once there is evidence that disregards or dismisses that information, I have absolutely nothing to show for it. My concern is that people use Wikipedia to spread misinformation to gain respect which normally would not have been deserved. AWDRacer (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails wp:bio with no WP:RS and no way to wp:verify. Pharmboy (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:VERIFY. — Satori Son 16:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Google searches turn up no reliable sources to establish notability, or verify any of the article content. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.