Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dima Haddadin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dima Haddadin
Delete nn/hoax. There's a claim to notability so it doesn't qualify for speedy. 29 unique google hits despite claiming to be a prominent, internationally recognized scholar (who is personal friends with Rush Limbaugh). Judging by the Google results it seems she's active in extra-curricular activities at the University of Windsor but that's it. Reads like typical vanity. TM 05:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What leads you to believe that this is a hoax? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- A) There is nothing to support any of the claims for notability such as tenure as professor, authorship, any recognition. B) The only working link is to her blog. C) She's 22/23. D) The article in its initial creation stated she had already been nominated for 2 Nobel Prizes and that she was engaged to Chuck Norris. Need I go on? --TM 06:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, that works for me. Think it's blatant enough for a G3? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Initially I didn't but since that was its initial creation as written by the main editor who only has edits to this page I'd say it's pretty clear-cut vanity/hoax/joke at this point. The article was tagged for speedy under A7 at one point but that was removed without comment. I think Speedy Deletion is justified now. --TM 06:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, that works for me. Think it's blatant enough for a G3? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- A) There is nothing to support any of the claims for notability such as tenure as professor, authorship, any recognition. B) The only working link is to her blog. C) She's 22/23. D) The article in its initial creation stated she had already been nominated for 2 Nobel Prizes and that she was engaged to Chuck Norris. Need I go on? --TM 06:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then let it be so. Speedy delete G3 as obvious hoax per nom's evidence, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per above. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it does not meet the qualification for A3, as being indecipherable nonsense. it just makes bviously false claims. I have no objection to deleting it snow, but it is not speedy. DGG (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2008 (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.
