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.
Redirect or Merge to author article. author has some notability in scientific community, her article can probably stay. she was nominated to work at the IAS in princeton, which is pretty good. but this novel is not notable. creative arts is NOT a notable publisher, though they do have occasional works of interest. merge some notable content into the author article. some puffery here too, like barnes and noble distributing. thats not the meaning of the word distribute in bookselling. if they were the official distributor of it, it would be notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Even" New Scientist? Novels about science are a curiosity, and a popular science mag like New Scientist is a natural home. Of course, it's only a couple sentences in a short review of 3 books. Apart from a very brief summary of the book, the only real comment on the book is "gripping stuff". Guettarda (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the "sources" in the ref section are a mess. Neither of the latter two mentions are actually from the sources to which they were attributed. The Reiken comment (incorrectly attributed to the "Association for Women Geoscientists" is actually a quote taken from the blurb on the back cover of the book (you can see the back cover on Amazon). Guettarda (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the Bushaw-Newton "review" (from BioScience, not "University of California Press") is a review of Echoes of Life, another book entirely. It opens with a few kind words about this book, but it's not be any stretch a review. Guettarda (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you on your comments here. I didn't spot it. But what about replace University of California Press with BioScience ("BioScience is the flagship publication of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS). It is a peer-reviewed, heavily cited, monthly science journal ") instead of just removing it? Nsaa (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aggree but the review of her next book says "In her first book, Carbon Dreams (2001), Susan Gaines combined fact and fiction to depict the life and struggles of a female geochemist as her career developed. The book portrayed the scientific world in both positive and negative ways by highlighting the passion that scientists have for their research, the difficulties and frustrations of finding funding, and the politics of scientific discovery.". This can be used to describe it (synopsis), and it covers point 1 in our policy (the important part here in this discussion). Nsaa (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : It's a well known book reviewed by major newspapers and well known sites such as New Scientist. It easily passes the bar for notability. Fell Gleaming(talk)23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Move to an article about the author as she has written another books also, Echoes of life : what fossil molecules reveal about earth history, in over 600 libraries. [4]. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note.We already have an article on the author, Susan M. Gaines, but it's now up for afd as well. But merging the book article into her bio seems like a sensible solution.--PinkBull21:40, 10 May 2010 (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.