Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shootout at taj hotel


 * 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 as vandalism. It's the same vandalism as in Maya Dolas, by yet another account of the same person. See Articles for deletion/Maya dolas is back. This is just a vandal copying and pasting Shootout at Lokhandwala with some of the names edited. Uncle G (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Shootout at taj hotel

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Dhoom 3 (film),Hathyar 10, Company 2

There are no reliable references on the web or in newspapers. The user who created this article keeps logging out to remove deletion and hoax tags. Unless proper references about these future films are found, all these articles --Dhoom 3 (film), Hathyar 10 and shootout at taj hotel should be deleted as hoaxes. There was a film called Dhoom, there was Dhoom 2 but there has been no news about Dhoom 3. Looks like he/she is making stuff up. Magic.Wiki (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - The only source is this movie's website, and it's very poorly written. I personally have no problem with it being speedied. &rarr; Dyl @  n  620  02:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, there is no source at all...the website he added is of some other movie.Magic.Wiki (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no references, likely to be made-up. --     06:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. All three articles fail WP:NFF; moreover, at least two are likely hoaxes.  Dhoom 3 (film) has copied the plot description of Dhoom 2 from  this website with some edits.  Shootout at taj hotel's "plot" is copied from 2008 Mumbai attacks.  Baileypalblue (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NFF. All the author's four articles seem to be hoaxes. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and then encouragethe author to gain a better understanding of what wiki is all about. Though failing WP:NFF in all ways, the article itself shows a growing understanding of format and style... just not of WP:V and WP:RS.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Too late. No understand for the blocked. Next case.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He's only blocked 24 hrs for sockpuppetry, so he has a chance to come back if he can learn the difference between fact and fiction; but well-formatted hoaxes are still hoaxes. JohnCD (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I most dfinitely agree. Now if he would only use his powers for good instead of evil....  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF. Is unsourced and most likely a hoax. Abecedare (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2009 (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.