Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst

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 redirect to Robert Sapolsky. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is a not-yet-published book with insufficient evidence of notability. The article was created by a single-purpose account. It is too soon to consider creating an article in Wikipedia on this subject. Biogeographist (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert Sapolsky (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. After the book is published, if there are enough reviews or articles about the book, the redirect can be easily undone.
Cunard (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that a redirect is an acceptable alternative. If it is redirected instead of deleted, the edit summary should link to this deletion discussion and note that the reason for the redirect is its current lack of notability. Biogeographist (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Redirect for the time being as per the above, simply WP:TOOSOON considering the book has yet to be released. In the future (assuming it is indeed released etc and does become notable), then by all means, it should be made into its own article. It is simply too soon in my opinion at the moment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2017 (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.