Reason: This commission appears to be in charge of personnel for state jobs in AP (which you have to read halfway through the article to find out in a one-liner). Mostly, as written, it's a legislative history of the body, with minutia about which laws govern it. There does not seem to be anything useful or encyclopedic about this "article" on just another government agency, any more than the literally millions of other state and local government agencies in the world for which we have no articles.
Google News has only two hits for it and, while Google Books shows 1500 hits, most seem to be periodic reports from itself or other Indian government agencies.
Almost no substantial edits in the 9 years since then, other than systematic maintenance edits and one vandal (yes, even the vandals aren't interested).
I don't think the meaning of any significant amount of it can be understood well enough to fix. Basically, it's a tear-down and re-write if someone were interested enough in the subject of the Russian M&A market of 2009.
Reason: Three of the four references are by the subject himself. The other is just a database entry at the BWF, showing activity in 2016 and 2017. I'm not familiar with what constitutes the "highest levels" per
WP:NBAD, but general notability is certainly not demonstrated. I suggest draftifying and notifying the (autobiography) editor about notability requirements.
Reason: This article was created in 2006 by an
WP:SPA. The
Publishers Summary section is huge – bigger than the rest of the stub (don't be fooled – it's inside small tags). The article's author claims (at
Talk:Love Is a Mix Tape) that we have permission to use it, but there is no ticket number or other details. The publisher's site and an LA Times article are the only two proper refs. There are potential refs in the form of ELs in the Press and Reviews section, but nobody has seen fit to expand the article using them in 14 years. Delete the quote and copyvio-revdel, or just delete this skeleton?
Reason: This commission appears to be in charge of personnel for state jobs in AP (which you have to read halfway through the article to find out in a one-liner). Mostly, as written, it's a legislative history of the body, with minutia about which laws govern it. There does not seem to be anything useful or encyclopedic about this "article" on just another government agency, any more than the literally millions of other state and local government agencies in the world for which we have no articles.
Google News has only two hits for it and, while Google Books shows 1500 hits, most seem to be periodic reports from itself or other Indian government agencies.
Almost no substantial edits in the 9 years since then, other than systematic maintenance edits and one vandal (yes, even the vandals aren't interested).
I don't think the meaning of any significant amount of it can be understood well enough to fix. Basically, it's a tear-down and re-write if someone were interested enough in the subject of the Russian M&A market of 2009.
Reason: Three of the four references are by the subject himself. The other is just a database entry at the BWF, showing activity in 2016 and 2017. I'm not familiar with what constitutes the "highest levels" per
WP:NBAD, but general notability is certainly not demonstrated. I suggest draftifying and notifying the (autobiography) editor about notability requirements.
Reason: This article was created in 2006 by an
WP:SPA. The
Publishers Summary section is huge – bigger than the rest of the stub (don't be fooled – it's inside small tags). The article's author claims (at
Talk:Love Is a Mix Tape) that we have permission to use it, but there is no ticket number or other details. The publisher's site and an LA Times article are the only two proper refs. There are potential refs in the form of ELs in the Press and Reviews section, but nobody has seen fit to expand the article using them in 14 years. Delete the quote and copyvio-revdel, or just delete this skeleton?