Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lind Innovation

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 as promotional, essay, BLP violation in some places -- take your pick. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lind Innovation

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

Reason CESSMASTER (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is a rambling, megalomaniacal mess of original theories and research, none of which is notable CESSMASTER (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is obviously not front-page grade, but a google search for "lind innovation" turns up several hundred thousand hits, and the quotations etc. seem to be legitimate. It seems Lind Innovation is important to mathematics, and has some strong backers, so let's stick with it for now. Egnalebd (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are the quotes legitimate? They have essentially nothing to do with the subject of the entry: the first one is from Christ. Hairhorn (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is indeed a corporation called Lind Innovation linked immediately above which is possibly notable, but its work apparently has nothing to do with the nonsense on this page, which is the product of one Jason Lind and seems to be entirely original research by synthesis. Once you plough through the over-linked verbiage, it's another theory of how things work. The individual pieces are drawn from notable topics, but the sum total is non-encyclopedic. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. This wasn't even associated directly with the company until Jason posted this, without any discussion or warning, this morning. All other things besides, I think he's making the clear point (with argumentative edits to the main article itself) that he views this as original research. Is there any way to renominate for speedy deletion? Reecesel (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced poppycock. Hairhorn (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. < REDACHTED BLP CONCERN REMAINS IN HISTORY , Dloh cierekim 20:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Reecesel (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google count is irrelevant to notability. However, out of ~48 unique G hits, I find no significant coverage, all of these are unrelated to the subject. Dloh cierekim 20:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If my Lord came down right now and said, "Mike, I think this is notable," i would still say "delete." The stylish quote inserts not withstanding, I agree that everything on that page does nothing to even hint at notability. OR and soapbox material, nothing encyclopedic at all. Dloh cierekim 20:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Not only is this not notable, not written in an encyclopedic style, completely unsourced, highly POV, but more importantly it is clearly promotional in nature, and should be speedily deleted under [{WP:CSD#G11]]. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedy delete, but that was contested. I don't know if it can be re-assigned to speedy delete if the original contesting editor withdraws their opposition? Reecesel (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unsourced, possible hoax entry. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2010 (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.