The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book:Neurochemitry[edit]

Duplicate of Book:NEUROSCIENCE. Two possible solutions here. 1) Delete Book:Neurochemitry, and merge BOOK:NEUROSCIENCE with Book:Neuroscience. 2) Move Book:Neurochemitry to Book:Neurochemistry, and delete Book:NEUROSCIENCE as a duplicate of this one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. (Ouch on that misspell!) I'd merge it into neuroscience, because we really don't need both. If there is only to be one, it should definitely be the broader neuroscience, not the other way around. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sorry if I'm being clueless, but if it is a duplicate, what's to merge? The only question in my mind is whether there should be a Book:Neurochemistry as a redirect. I'd opt for no, but if someone else wanted to create one as a plausible search term, I wouldn't object.--SPhilbrickT 14:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three books are concerned "Book:Neurochemitry", "Book:NEUROSCIENCE" and "Book:Neuroscience". The first two are duplicates of each other. The question is should there should there be two books ("Book:Neurochemistry", and "Book:Neuroscience") or only one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:40, 24 October 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.