Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abdelqader

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 speedily deleted (by me) as hoax. I'll leave it to others to deal with the images. Deor (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Abdelqader[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My main objection to this page is that it is a hoax. It has two pictures on it, both of which include the face of the subject very obviously super-imposed. Beyond this, the article has no sources. Lastly, nothing in the article amount to a claim of notability. The scary thing to me is this article has existed since last October. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3. This is a blatant hoax and should be deleted immediately. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 23:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious hoax.TheLongTone (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better late than never. Thanks for catching this. Cbl62 (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete blatant hoax per G3. The obviously rough cut-and-pastes of the subject's face on another person in photos with Tupac are hilarious. We seem to be encountering more and more tests of our systems and procedures for new articles, at least some of which are inspired/suggested by academics who question the validity/sustainability of Wikipedia as a reference of any reliability. I ask, not entirely rhetorically, whether we still have organized New Page Patrols? This article should not have survived a cursory review by any editor who was vaguely familiar with our notability, reliable source and deletion policies and guidelines, but yet, it survived for ten months. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G3 - blatant hoax. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 16 August 2014 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.