Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Main Uddin

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Main Uddin


This draft was created in June 2012‎, since when it has been submitted to articles for creation 15 times, and declined every time:. The creation and most of the editing have come from a number of IP addresses all from the same ISP in the same city: without much doubt, the same person. There has also been editing by at least one virtual single-purpose account (with only one rather trivial edit on another topic). There have been to my knowledge five attempts to bypass the "articles for creation" process for this draft by posting it as an article (four times as Main Uddin and once as MAIN UDDIN, no doubt to evade creation protection on Main Uddin), and every time it has been deleted for lack of evidence of significance. One of those creations was made by an editor who stated that he was Main Uddin, and others were by editors who show evidence of a connection to him, quite possibly being him too. This is a long-running attempt to create a self-promotional page about a person who does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as agreed by the numerous editors who have declined it as an "Articles for Creation" submission, or tagged the articles for speedy deletion, and the administrators who have deleted them. This is not suitable as an article, and after nearly four and a half years it is time to get rid of it, rather than wasting further time of editors who have to keep dealing with the endless attempts to get it made into an article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - exactly per nominator, enough time has been spent on this. For point of discussion, is it advisable to salt in the draft space?    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 13:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't remember ever seeing that done, but I don't see why it shouldn't. However, my inclination would be not to do so unless the page is deleted as a result of this discussion and then recreated. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.