- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Evolution of the Genome[edit]
- The Evolution of the Genome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability. In fact, it appears to be less notable than any average textbook. Probable vanity article. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no indication it's any more notable than any other textbook. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - presumably advertising given the somewhat inside view provided. Could possibly be listed in a bibliography somewhere but no place for an article on it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing but a promotion. Mootros (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It fails WP:BKCRIT, it is a promo and like most other textbooks. Not enough notable →TSU T* 17:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found a review in a journal, but that isn't enough. SL93 (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2012 (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.