Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 10% Solution for a Healthy Life

The 10% Solution for a Healthy Life was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep.

This is a health book like they go by 13 in a dozen. There is not the slightest indication that it has any form of notability apart from its author (Raymond Kurzweil) that makes it worthy of its own Wikipedia entry. Nice that it's free, so it should not need Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle. JFW | T@lk  20:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. JFW | T@lk  20:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I can't believe this hasn't gotten a keep vote yet while How to Good-Bye Depression has a flood of them. Preventing this article from recurring would require going to (highly notable) Raymond Kurzweil and insisting that this one of his books cited there never be redlinked. Notable in the context of Kurzweil, and in the context of health books that a renaissance scholar from other fields might endeavour to write one. Article is easily expandible by readers of free ebook version, and can diverge from the book itself with NPOV discussion of critical responses. Finally, none less than Britannica itself elaborates briefly on the book! Samaritan 05:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * So why not merge this book in the Kurzweil article and get over with it? It is a self-help book, pure and simple, and Wikipedia is not in the business of following Britannica - we're leading. JFW | T@lk  09:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If we lead Britannica, it's in significant part because Wikipedia, of course, is not paper. Merged with Kurzweil, for starters, there's an ontological loss: it won't be browsable or forkable through the Category:Books subsets appropriate to the book itself. (I suppose we could jury-rig equivalent author categories to the book categories: "Category: Author of 1993 book?" "Category:Nutrition" (for Kurzweil himself?) We could but... eek. And I'm not saying this is one of the greatest books of all time. But it's notable and expandible enough to stand up well next to other widely-accepted Wikipedia articles. Samaritan 10:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Defreakinleet We're not Amazon. --ExplorerCDT 06:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Samaritan makes a good case. If an article is in Brittanica, it's certainly encyclopedic enough for us. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:51, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't care about Brittanica, but I've heard about this diet from a few people -- it seems to have achieved some notability. It's not quite Atkins, but it's known enough. --Improv 16:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Or merge/redir. Less than 1400 hits and an amazon sales rank of 61000 doesn't seem particularly notable. From above, note that Britannica does NOT have an article for this book, just a brief aside in the author's article. Niteowlneils 18:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Note: 61 000 is quite respectable for an eleven-year-old book (and whose content is free online besides). Samaritan 03:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge Does not seem to be notable enough to warrant it's own article. Kaldari 19:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. DCEdwards1966 03:58, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep it. [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 16:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. For reasons stated by others that vote keep. --Dittaeva 20:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.