Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rehan Qayoom (2nd nomination)

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 WP:SNOW Delete --JForget 00:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rehan Qayoom

autobiography; previously deleted, and then re-created by article subject; non-notable Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sppedy Delete via WP:CSD#G4 --Numyht (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: G4 does not apply here; previous deletion was not via discussion. Tan | 39 20:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete via WP:N, and thank you Tanthalas --Numyht (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has a blatant conflict of interest and fails WP:N. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't want this deleted because it fails WP:NOTE, nor do I want this deleted because it fails WP:BIO. Those things are just guidelines, though they should be taken into serious consideration when we are in the process of coming to a conclusion. The reason why this should be deleted is because it violated WP:V, which is a policy.

I looked through the first 150 results on this [1] search, and I found no reliable sources. When I looked through all the results [2] I couldn't find any reliable sources either. I know I've pretty much shown that this article is unverifiable, but to further prove this article isn't verifiable he doesn't show up at google books either;-)[3]--SJP (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well full marks to the author since is more of the better written articles on a fraud that I have seen. Sources are rubbish. I got excited when I saw a mention of him in The Times, but all he did was post a comment on an article. Sorry, no dice. Montco (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, vanity article, unverifiable. Interesting that he has just deleted the claim that he was poet laureate at Birkbeck, presumably because he knew that could be shown to be false. Doug Weller (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SJP. — Athaenara ✉ 08:04, 29 June 2008 (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.