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 under CSD criterion G11 as unambiguously promotional. Airplaneman ✈ 13:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5 Gears Diet: Learn how to drive your body[edit]

5 Gears Diet: Learn how to drive your body (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)

not notable enough to be included Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under G11 - Pure promo piece, a book by a non-notable author, with the article written by a SPA that appears may have some connection to the author. Note it was sort-of submitted for AfC, but created 90 minutes later by the same person in mainspace - and it would never have passed AfC. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Copied from the talk page by Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 11:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... It's a public book with good reviews on Goodreads and I believe is important for people to know some details about it. If this argument is not enough, please tell me how an article should look like not to be considered an advertising. --Artio01 (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's a "public book" is hardly a good reason to keep this article. Aside from scrap books, sketch books, and diaries/journals; aren't all books, public books? The BLT Cookbook article is a good example of how an article about a book should look. It has references and a reception section which shows independent critical reviews. //Gbern3 (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - The tone of this article is unambiguously promotional. The synopsis section reads like the article is really about the author and not about the book. Looks like WP:SOAPBOX. //Gbern3 (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2013 (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.