Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rimo Haq

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 - Deleted due to inclement weather - Peripitus (Talk) 12:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rimo Haq

Puff piece for a 17-year-old author. Claims various extremely unlikely forms of notability. rspεεr (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator, I was unable to find anything on the Author. Seems to fit WP:CSD#A7 as well. [mad pierrot][t c] 09:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, it's not A7, because the article spends basically the entire time indicating why its subject is important or significant. I don't think it's true, but that's beside the point. rspεεr (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likewise unable to find anything to verify this, WP:HOAX. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 11:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jujutacular. -- Spireguy (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing at all on the internet; probable hoax. Also, I find the page's history very interesting. Notice how it was written by three different users without gaps in timing? The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 14:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:HOAX. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:HOAX and A7 Delete - as a hoax Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, the article does not qualify under A7 (it claims importance and signifigance), and WP:HOAX is not speedy deletion criterion. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 18:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a Template:Db-hoax. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for blatant hoaxes (which classify as vandalism). However, this is not a blatant hoax, because it is believable. An example of a blatant hoax is, "John Doe is a 594,053 year old man who is the oldest living person in the world", because no sensible person could believe that. However, the claims made in this article are not so outrageous that they couldn't be believed. There are people who have written books as children. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 23:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:SNOW. An apparent hoax [1]. — Rankiri (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. The fact that there's no ghits for the "author" or any of "his" "books" is pretty good evidence that this is a hoax made by someone who was bored. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author name not found on AbeBooks, Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, nor Amazon.ca. No interesting hits in Google. Not notable much less being anywhere close to the claims in the article. There is a facebook page for a Rimo Haq which says she's at St George Girls High School '09. Two of the three people editing the Rimo Haq article are also editing the St. George Girls' High School page indicating this is likely a hoax page pretending that Rimo is both a guy, and world famous. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Per nom., WP:V, WP:HOAX and WP:SNOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Song (talk • contribs) 04:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:HOAX and WP:BULLSHIT. Predicting snow. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2009 (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.