| Revision as of 20:08, 4 March 2010 editHairhorn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers40,620 edits →Lind Innovation← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:20, 4 March 2010 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,487 edits →Lind Innovation: BLP redachted by dlohcierekimNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *'''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 ]. Once you plough through the over-linked verbiage, it's another ]. The individual pieces are drawn from ], but the sum total is non-encyclopedic. | *'''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 ]. Once you plough through the over-linked verbiage, it's another ]. The individual pieces are drawn from ], but the sum total is non-encyclopedic. | ||
| *'''Delete''', unsourced poppycock. ] (]) 19:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', unsourced poppycock. ] (]) 19:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. I know the individual author personally (Jason Lind), and from what I've been able to sort out his morning from discussing this with him, mutual friends, and family, he's currently suffering from a manic episode. RE: Egnalebd's comment, I highly doubt this theory was in any way endorsed or is even known to David Jao; in fact, it seems to be completely of Jason's authorship. ] (]) 19:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. REDACHTED BLP CONCERN REMAINS IN HISTORY ] (]) 19:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:20, 4 March 2010
Lind Innovation
- Lind Innovation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason CESSMASTER (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- Delete, unsourced poppycock. Hairhorn (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. REDACHTED BLP CONCERN REMAINS IN HISTORY Reecesel (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)