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. Kurykh (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Miracle of Fasting[edit]

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

i believe that there is no reason for The Miracle of Fasting article as there is almost no encyclopedic content there is almost nothing on the book in this article and we are not supposed to have articles promoting peoples teachings whether good bad or otherwise Jonnymoon96 (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't find anything that suggests coverage in independent reliable sources - mostly mentioned in blog posts and the like. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mere PROMO for a non-notable book. gNews search: [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Paul Bragg which mentions this book in the Legacy section. Current sourcing is a link to the book itself. I found some articles with coverage of this book. However those were primarily about the author. Russian language article from 2013, brief mention in another 2013 article. Not enough about the book to satisfy WP:NBOOK.
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:TNT. It reeks of spammish, peacocky language. We are not a web host for every health book; we are a private charity. There are no independent sources. Even if this stub could be sourced well, it's so badly written as an advertorial that it would have to be gutted and written from scratch. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 16 March 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.