Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tajinder Puneet


 * 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 by WP:CSD blatant hoax Polargeo (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tajinder Puneet

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Story with no independent reliable sources to back up its claim of notability. It claims to be one of "five popular tragic romances of the Punjab"; curiously, the four linked romances are all described as one of four popular tragic romances. As a side note, one of the main editors to the page is. It's hard to tell if the name is a legitimate coincidence or if it's an author attempting to advertise via Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no showing of notability nor sources. (GregJackP (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, probably a hoax. Salih  ( talk ) 15:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems like a hoax. As opening statement mentioned, all the other poems in the series are identified as "one of four", and this claims to be a fifth. In addition, googling parts of the poem in question only brings up the Wikipedia page. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 15:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I smell a hoax.  Kubek15  write / sign 16:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and my original PROD; at best, all one can say is that this is utterly unverifiable, and the author, of course, has declined to provide anything that might serve as a source.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Hoax.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I took out the original CSD (A1) - I might have assumed a bit too much good faith, and therefore put a notenglish template on it. I didn't notice it was, in effect, No.5 of four... The author has not done much editing of late, except to remove the PROD template this morning.  I have just put a G3 CSD on it, maybe that will get some better input from the original author.  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:48, 6 April 2010 (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.