Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shama Hyder

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 delete. czar 14:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shama Hyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Highly promotional article, full of spam links, no significant and independent sources. Fails WP:GNG Mar11 (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If she were demonstrated to be notable, which this PR copy doesn't do, WP:TNT would still be called for. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tend to agree. Deb (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Typical non notable PR article damaging Wikipedia's credibilityLyndaship (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is high time we freed Wikipedia of promotional PR rubbish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable self-promoter.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2018 (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.