Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach

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. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Core desat 22:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach

Not notable, no content, dicdef Rifleman 82 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub. This book is notable for helping to launch the life extensionist movement. Spacepotato 04:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - the assertion that it "popularised" the life extension movement would make it notable, but it's not backed up by third-party sources. Delete unless sources can be found by the end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple, independent third-party sources can be found (i.e. meeting the WP:ATT policy). My 20 minute web search didn't turn up any such sources, but maybe someone else will be more successful. -- MarcoTolo 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, or worst-case merge to Life extension. Very notable book, many substantial non-trivial reliable independent published works about the book itself, and countless on the movement of course. I expanded and added a number of news articles about the book. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 11:16Z
Keep assertion and citation of notability. -Markeer 14:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable... - Denny 14:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep dicdef?? huh? Keep per Quarl's sources. — brighterorange (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Life extension. Morphh ^(talk) 17:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as per Morphh. How can this be considered a dicdef? The book is a precedent in itself anyway. Whilding87 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Somewhat notable book from the 1980s, published by major publisher, influential in the health-food sector. Dragomiloff 19:12, 4 March 2007 (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.