Talk:Survival of the Sickest (book)

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page on "Survival of the Sickest (book)" should not be deleted because it is a book that talks about diseases, a very prominent encyclopedia topic, in a new and interesting way. Just as a point of reference, there is a thriving article for the book Freakonomics, which was produced by the same publisher and has a similar writing style (though it is about economics as opposed to medicine). I am still in the process of editing the article and to make it sound thoroughly objective and encyclopedia-like. This is not a promotion of the book. It is a book worth writing about because there are discussions worth having. There are controversial ideas presented and I hope to expose some them to the public criticism it has received. I am in no way affiliated with the author, book publisher, or their affiliates.

Thank you.

Imac4life (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These comments should be posted in the deletion discussion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've copied them to that page. LadyofShalott 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

i helped this article, and apparently that was supportive of a speedy keep. this book seems very interesting, so it deserves a solid stub article. i had some edit conflicts, which i think i was able to not mess up. if i deleted someone elses recent work, it was an accident.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]