Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survival of the Sickest (book)


 * 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   speedy keep. (non-admin closure) [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 17:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Survival of the Sickest (book)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

blatant and obvious hoax, subject book reportedly answers the question "Can a person rust to death? " Speedy declined, but this one needs a fast flushing! Wuh Wuz  Dat  15:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC) This page on "Survival of the Sickest (book)" should not be deleted because it is a book that talks about diseases, a very prominent encyclopedia topic, in a new and interesting way. Just as a point of reference, there is a thriving article for the book Freakonomics, which was produced by the same publisher and has a similar writing style (though it is about economics as opposed to medicine). I am still in the process of editing the article and to make it sound thoroughly objective and encyclopedia-like. This is not a promotion of the book. It is a book worth writing about because there are discussions worth having. There are controversial ideas presented and I hope to expose some them to the public criticism it has received. I am in no way affiliated with the author, book publisher, or their affiliates.
 * Comment - it may be deletable as spam, but it is clearly not a hoax. Amazon has this book for sale.  Lady  of  Shalott  15:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I don't know if the nominator did any research, but this book is real, and by all accounts, notable, so I see no reason for deletion. Angryapathy (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  16:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Published by a major publisher (HarperCollins), apparently did make the NYT best seller list, certainly notable and by no means a hoax. Independent coverage from Publishers Weekly as well, and has 77 customer reviews on Amazon (that's not a normal indicator of notability, but non-notable books barely garner more than a couple of comments). A provocative comment taken out of context does not constitute a hoax. Article needs the promotional tne turned down a notch or two, though. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pasting the below comments from the article's talk page. Lady  of  Shalott  16:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Imac4life (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Real book published by HarperCollins.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on the nomination: Presumably, when the authors ask whether a person can "rust to death", they are employing dramatic language to discuss the well-described issues of iron overload (see hemochromatosis) and oxidative stress. It's perhaps overly melodramatic language, but the concept being discussed is a real one with some currency and legitimacy. MastCell Talk 17:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep article was somewhat poorly structured and promotional in tone, having borrowed promotional quotes from the book, which while allowed, didnt help the article. i have tried to show notability with some more links, and trimmed out the parts that i think hurt the article. i see no question about the books notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.