Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Farhad shahnawaz

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 all. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Farhad shahnawaz

A WP:FAKEARTICLE by an WP:SPA. This was posted to mainspace and speedied under A7, after which it was created here and at AfC (not worried about deleting the AfC one though). Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and delete the AfC too per WP:FAKEARTICLE, fake articles can exist anywhere, and allowing them to keep their AfC which is likely to be used as a fake article is not appropriate. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 20:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm opposed to deleting the AfC. It's inherently not a fake article. Just let it sit there noindexed for 6 months and let it get G13'd. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - noindex does not prevent links to it - which is the problem with fakearticles, people giving links out to those who don't know a Wikipedia page from a real article. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 20:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per Charmlelt. GregJackP Boomer! 13:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's now copied and pasted the page to User:Farhad shahnawaz/Farhad shahnawaz; I've added it to the nomination. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note; there are a number of "references" at the bottom of this revision of the page. Some are obviously not legitimate (e.g. the link to his YouTube page), but others do appear to be mentions in reputable sources (e.g. The Hindu, The Times of India).

*Perhaps* this casts a more favourable light on the case for the existence of the original article? (And yes, I do appreciate that the onus was on the writer to include them in the first place). Ubcule (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2013 (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.