Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Design is Not a Matter of Taste, It's a Business

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. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Design is Not a Matter of Taste, It's a Business[edit]

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

Non-notable book. No independent sources available. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Part of a walled garden by SPAs (under investigation for sockpuppetry) whose sole intent has been to include this author's non-notable concepts on Wikipedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A self-published e-book with no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: No evidence of notability. Wikicology (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what has been said already. 331dot (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, et al. Also, page creators banned as sock puppets. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2014 (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.