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.
Delete per nom - the text is also very obviously the publisher's blurb, which frankly Alan you should have spotted! I'll leave it to you to do the copyvio stuff. Johnbod (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a lot of editors missed that one including yourself. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Copyvio cleaned. Yoenit (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have relisted to get more views, given that the copvio has been removed and one review has been added since the above comments. Davewild (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a merge to author page - the book has some reviews and the author is clearly notable, so why not merge a little of the plot into the author's page, Sadads (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to authors page. Heiro 05:28, 10 November 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.