Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sing, Your way through life

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sing, Your way through life[edit]

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

Just-published book with no evidence of notability--fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) and attempts to inherit from notable organization and problems that authors are addressing but WP notability is not inheritable) DMacks (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and failing Wp:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A really ugly WP:PROMO attempt for a book released last week with no sign of notability (and now being used to hold an ugly attack on the rights of Wikipedia editors to boot.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lads, calm down and please control ego's a little, please send me a way to mail you and I will happily send you a copy of the book, this book will save many people, it is being considered for national consumption by the NHS and is going on coast to coast radio in the USA, Yes you have power, yes you can delete it. but please think a little first. a little knowledge is dangerous, read the book and then you will know. perhaps you might even help me to make it more complient — Preceding Greg Woods comment added by Therapeia cic (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Therapeia cic (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Greg Woods[reply]

We don't appreciate or accept bribes (in part because you don't know where we live and in part because it doesn't help your case what-so-ever). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete If it makes it into use in the NHS we can reconsider.©Geni (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone please show me the results of a study (ideally a secondary source) that demonstrates the benefits of the approach discussed in this book. JFW | T@lk 07:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The accuracy of the content, in fact everything about the content, is irrelevant to the question of notability and thus whether it has an article. It was needless for the author to offer us copies for this discussion; it might be helpful for creating the content of the article, but it does no have any policy impact on whether the article gets saved. We have plenty of articles on lousy or inaccurate books, and there are many wonderful reads which have not gotten enough notice for us. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2014 (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.