Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pi Day Die Day

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 keep. Sandstein 09:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Day Die Day[edit]

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

Little independent evidence of notability. Hayman30 (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant advertising/promotion by the COI creator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 06:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ with no prejudice to recreation. It is salvageable and a cursory search showed some glimmer of hope ("reliable" sources: [1], etc). As it stands however, it would be best to just get rid of this poorly written promo-piece. Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Keep. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and continue work per available sources, with a note to author about WP:OWN and WP:COI as covered by WP:PRIMER. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much kudos for blowing up all the mess and turning it into a decent-ish stub @MichaelQSchmidt:, but we had better get to work on the body otherwise there's not much point in the article. Kingoflettuce (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really did not take too long to show the TOPIC as pushing up on WP:NF even as a stub. Being improvable, it need not start out as perfect, and yes there's more to do. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Once upon a time I could sit through hours of Steven Seagal's worst movies... Don't think I have the inclination or time to watch this one, so the Plot section would have to languish for a while. Otherwise I think I have contributed enuf to the page's cleanup and perhaps @Hayman30: could withdraw his nom. Cheers Kingoflettuce (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional editing. You did very well under WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. And its kind of sad that folks act as if "current state" is the only thing to consider and that due diligence is often ignored. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on recent improvements. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:11, 23 June 2017 (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.