Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Saddam Hossain Khan

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: keep . Consensus is that it doesn't cross the line into FAKEARTICLE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saddam Hossain Khan

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Hhkohh (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User page set up as a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Whpq (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Similar to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amitgahlyan06. Infoboxes certainly are not disallowed, take Salvidrim! for instance. It also appears that they are making useful contributions to the mainspace, so WP:NOTHERE doesn't come into play. ~~Moderate as weak keep felt like not enough while a normal keep seemed like too much.~~ — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Godsy: Please have a look at Saddam hossain khan and Saddam Hossain Khan. --Whpq (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Whpq: I lack the administrator glasses necessary to view the deleted history, but I will convert my !vote to a comment for now. Were they created by this same user and did they have similar content? — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Godsy:Have a look at the user's talk page. It's full of of deletion notices. As for content, does it really matter if the content were similar? It's repeated attempts to write an autobiography in article space, and we have a user page formatted and structured to look like an article. -- Whpq (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - I would like to see some more input on this one, so I suggest a relist at this point. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep – Other than the Filmography section that has a one-entry table with nothing but red links, I don't see how this can be taken for a fake article. Infobox uses {{infobox person}} rather than {{Infobox Wikipedia user}}, which would allow him to display just as much information. Is using the former a problem? This user is trying to use Wikipedia to promote himself, and that continues, as he has made several attempts over several years to create an article about himself. He needs to know about YouTube or some other more amenable site. However, as Godsy said, he's made several recent contributions without a proportional number of disruption warnings, with Whpq's being the most recent (a 2015 disruption warning is why I have him on my watchlist). He, or his photographer, should think about contributing to Commons, if his pictures could be less focused on himself. In his most recent user photo, he's apparently standing in front of the terminal at Patna's Jay Prakash Narayan Airport, which is looking for an image, although certainly one with different composition. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the user page again, I see that there's an article-like intro and a red link to the perennially created and repeatedly deleted article on himself. I hadn't noticed that. My keep just got a bit weaker. He should be asked to change that, as well as remove the Filmography section. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like within reasonable leeway given the user’s mainspace editing. Not overpromotional, but you can add {{Userpage}}. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:14, 22 July 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.