- 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 (I then created a redirect) - Nabla (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brain Rules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Advert for a recently published book. (Or, if that don't work, how about original research?) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see no relevance of this book. --Abrech (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - shameless advertisement for non-notable book --Orange Mike | Talk 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - non-notable and blatant advertising. Dreamspy (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. The book has a respectable Amazon.co.uk sales rank for a popsci text (61,211)[1] but doesn't seem to require more than a brief mention in the author's article. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Medina. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete and redirect to John Medina - no more content in need of merging. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:07, 14 April 2008 (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.