Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IICCRD
In today's world, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IICCRD has become a topic of great relevance and interest to many people in different fields. Whether in the scientific, cultural, social or personal sphere, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IICCRD has generated a significant impact on the way we approach different aspects of daily life. Its influence extends globally, and its importance continues to constantly grow. In this article, we will explore in detail the role of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IICCRD in our current society, examining its implications and repercussions in various contexts.
- 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 speedy delete. G3: Blatant hoax, as shown through obviously falsified references. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Kumar Dwivedi. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- IICCRD (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)
Apparent WP:HOAX. I spot-checked cited 10 refs and they are all incorrect: they discuss "cloud computing" not "IICCRD" (or its expanded acronym), and some of the content is copied from Cloud computing and perhaps other sources. As if the whole idea is copy&paste and search&replace. DMacks (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I have just checked the nominators description and it is correct. The article is bogus. Yaris678 (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete and consider a G3 Speedy. This is even a more transparent hoax than the other one at AFD by the same creator(s). In this case, even the article titles of real sources have been misrepresented to indicate support for this hoax, which makes the deception both blatant and unquestionably willful. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Last year, an article at Iiccrd was speedied A7. I'm not able to see the text of that deleted article, but it's possible this is also reposted deleted information (especially if the huge blocks of text copy-pasted from cloud computing are excised). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- (in response to a question at WP:AN about the content of the previously deleted article) The content of IICCRD is significantly different than the content of Iiccrd, which was a bare bones regurgitation if the organization's goals. No comment on the suitability of the current article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking, I thought it was worth the peek. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- (in response to a question at WP:AN about the content of the previously deleted article) The content of IICCRD is significantly different than the content of Iiccrd, which was a bare bones regurgitation if the organization's goals. No comment on the suitability of the current article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Last year, an article at Iiccrd was speedied A7. I'm not able to see the text of that deleted article, but it's possible this is also reposted deleted information (especially if the huge blocks of text copy-pasted from cloud computing are excised). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as a hoax. The references are all falsified. -- Whpq (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - now I'm annoyed that I just did some gnomish clean-up on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 10:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- 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.