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. Consensus of No indication of suitable reviews or other route to notability Nosebagbear (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Unselfish Gene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article about a book created in 2009 by its author. Tagged for notability until 2015 when that template was removed. However except for reviews in Amazon, Goodreads etc. I can’t see anything that would support notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not the slightest evidence of wide attention. No awards, no third-party reviews, anda defunct publisher. Indistinguishable, really, from an advertisement. --Calton | Talk 09:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unnotable book, unnotable author, zero reviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, alarm bells ringing with dearth of library holdings of this title - see here, nothing found with a gsearch of title, author "reviews", Internet Speculative Fiction Database has nothing either to support wikinotability - see here. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2019 (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.