Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let’s save humans’ life with good design

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 speedily deleted G11 by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s save humans’ life with good design[edit]

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

Unremarkable e-book. Promotional article, no indication of notability. Previously speedy-deleted for advertising.Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :None of the references refer to the book, merely the e-book's thesis. No indication of notability. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find sufficient independent reliable sources to establish notability. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wildly non-notable, English title doesn't even make sense. Already speedied as spam once, entry is by the author. Even Amazon doesn't have it. Hairhorn (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very non-notable. There's no coverage for this book in any RS, the article itself is one long piece of spam, it's almost completely a personal essay, and well... it doesn't help that User:Mohsenjaafarnia has his personal resume up on his user page, complete with an email address and personal website. This is pretty obviously one guy's attempt at self-promotion. I'd recommend that an admin take a look at the guy's user page as well. It's the type of thing that makes me wish there was a speedy category for promotional user pages.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage of the book by secondary sources. The citations listed in the article don't actually mention the book. It's a promotional article on a subject that isn't notable.--xanchester (t) 22:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a pretty blatant plug. The only thing notable about it appears to be its non-notability. If it was speedied before, it probably should be so again. Sidatio (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Commercial plug of a non-notable book. Carrite (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per everyone else. A non-notable book which is not the subject of significant coverage, and borderline advertising as well. Let's better not save this article once it's deleted. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:44, 26 October 2012 (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.