Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Muneeb Faiq: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:05, 18 December 2016

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: delete. Nabla (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Muneeb Faiq

A vanity autobiography that would be nuked as WP:CSD#G11 if promoted to mainspace. An example: read the section on the Zika study. It describes a ground-breaking and important piece of research from 2016, supported by two press reports (which of course are based on press releases from the institution) and the paper itself, which is here: [1]. This ground-breaking paper has never been referenced. If you look at the Article Impact page and drill into the 760-odd reads of the paper from the US, fully a third of them geolocate to a single address, which is not an academic institution (in fact it appears likely to be a private address). There is blatant resume padding and WP:PEACOCK going on here. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I Agree with the concerns outlined by the nominator. The article was promotional when it was created in May 2015. As more and more promotional material was added, these problems were noticed and the article moved to draft in August 2016. There was other promotional activity going on in August 2016 which led me to pick up on some of the sockpuppetry here. Over the past month IPs edits to the draft have resumed. Although there are many references included, these are not particularly reliable or independent or do not offer coverage of the individual. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very puffed promotion, heavily Wikipedia:Reference bombed but none covering the subject appear independent of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 * '''Delete'''. I Agree with the concerns outlined by the nominator. The article was promotional when it was created in May 2015. As more and more promotional material was added, these problems were noticed and the article moved to draft in August 2016. There was other promotional activity going on in August 2016 which led me to pick up on some of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikiwetwo/Archive sockpuppetry here]. Over the past month IPs edits to the draft have resumed. Although there are many references included, these are not particularly reliable or independent or do not offer coverage of the individual. [[User:Drchriswilliams|Drchriswilliams]] ([[User talk:Drchriswilliams|talk]]) 11:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * '''Delete''' per nom.  Very puffed promotion, heavily [[Wikipedia:Reference bombed]] but none covering the subject appear independent of the subject.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.</div>
+{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion|{{collapse bottom}}|}}