Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Science of Sunlight and Vitamin D


 * 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. Sr13 is almost  Singu  larity  01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Science of Sunlight and Vitamin D

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

expired prod left by author but objected to, so I'll call it a contested prod. Prod based on "NN book by NN author. xlibris.com is a self-publishing house", with which I agree, per WP:BK and WP:N. Carlossuarez46 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I placed that prod. The article is the exposition of the content of the book at great length. The sources for notability are blurbs on the cover, which are not reviews, and do not count as notability for anything. DGG (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Might have used as a wikilink for suntanning if I had known it existed. That would end the 'dead end' issue.  Not sure how to apply policy in this case, so not taking a stand on del/kep.  Sounds like an interesting read tho. Pharmboy 00:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources for notability are the references contained in the bibliography of the book.--Jamesonjon 06:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - there's no evidence the book is notable. The blurb on the book cover is under the control of the author, so we still don't have any independent verification that any reliable source considers the book notable. (Note: if kept, should be renamed to the title of the book.) --Alvestrand 13:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I noticed a few other cites referencing the book per wikipedia. Again, not sure this would meet notability issue.  Can't find the obvious hits for notability for the book.  Pharmboy 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that other sites are pointing to Wikipedia's book description, or something else? I can't quite figure out the sentence - but if so, this might be a reason for someone to place the Wikipedia article in the first place: to give the impression of an authoritative place with information about the book. --Alvestrand 17:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Other sites using Wikipedia's article verbatim, which isn't a particularly strong case. Pharmboy 18:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Author didn't want to include "prostate cancer" in the title of the article, which is the main reason one might be interested in reading about this. The book author had a reason for putting that in the title.  This might merit a mention in another article about prostate cancer or Vitamin D, but no merge necessary somewhere. Mandsford 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it doesn't look like as an encyclopedic article to me. It fits more to a popular science magazine. -- Magioladitis 05:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN, book by a vanity press, can not be sourced. Bearian 00:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable book, per Amazon.co.uk ranking of 1,788,143 & Amazon.com ranking of #2,187,098  and no evidence of independent high-quality reviews, awards etc. Espresso Addict 17:30, 7 August 2007 (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.