The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 03:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply
I previously deleted this as A7; it was re-posted, and PROD was contested. It is still awfully close to A7 this time around, and makes no indication of notability. Appears to fail both WP:BK and WP:GNG. Submitter has apparent COI. CharlieEchoTango ( contact) 02:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply
message from user programmabilities: hello. i created this article. what is wrong with it? i did everything correctly. everything is right. if there is a problem with this article, i will fix it. --once i understand what the problem is and how to fix it. so please do not delete. it is a work in progress. thankyou, user: programmabilities - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programmabilities ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply
message from user programmabilities: my address to the issue regarding notability: the book is in libraries. it is in the google book project. and copies of the book are selling here:
> Amazon.com/dp/B0065KBQR0 > BarnesAndNoble.com/w/a-warm-mirror-neuron-on-a-memory-e-e/1108078359 > Smashwords.com/books/view/116236 > books.Google.com/books?id=cUldeL1jf2wC
thankyou, user: programmabilities -- programmabilities ( talk) 02:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply
message from user programmabilities: being owned and read by people AND being read in libraries creates "interest". --these people google the title of the book and want to see it's article on wikipedia. ...i understand your concerns now. i understand the issue you have now. thanks for explaining. i hope you will decide to keep the article. the book is selling and more libraries are stocking it. thanks. -- programmabilities ( talk) 03:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply
...you can argue any BOOK article is "advertising spam / promotional placement". your case is a poor excuse. ....the facts of the article remain. as should the article remain in wikipedia. you have changed your argument. first you said it did not have enough notoriety. now you say it is because of advertising. that is inconsistent. now as to your latest additional criticism of "no independent sources". --the wiki documentation concerning book articles mentions that Google Books counts on that score. ....your user page says you are an "inclusionist". --so your agruements are very strange indeed. -- programmabilities ( talk) 09:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply
-- programmabilities ( talk) 17:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC) reply
-- programmabilities ( talk) 07:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 03:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply
I previously deleted this as A7; it was re-posted, and PROD was contested. It is still awfully close to A7 this time around, and makes no indication of notability. Appears to fail both WP:BK and WP:GNG. Submitter has apparent COI. CharlieEchoTango ( contact) 02:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply
message from user programmabilities: hello. i created this article. what is wrong with it? i did everything correctly. everything is right. if there is a problem with this article, i will fix it. --once i understand what the problem is and how to fix it. so please do not delete. it is a work in progress. thankyou, user: programmabilities - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programmabilities ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply
message from user programmabilities: my address to the issue regarding notability: the book is in libraries. it is in the google book project. and copies of the book are selling here:
> Amazon.com/dp/B0065KBQR0 > BarnesAndNoble.com/w/a-warm-mirror-neuron-on-a-memory-e-e/1108078359 > Smashwords.com/books/view/116236 > books.Google.com/books?id=cUldeL1jf2wC
thankyou, user: programmabilities -- programmabilities ( talk) 02:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply
message from user programmabilities: being owned and read by people AND being read in libraries creates "interest". --these people google the title of the book and want to see it's article on wikipedia. ...i understand your concerns now. i understand the issue you have now. thanks for explaining. i hope you will decide to keep the article. the book is selling and more libraries are stocking it. thanks. -- programmabilities ( talk) 03:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply
...you can argue any BOOK article is "advertising spam / promotional placement". your case is a poor excuse. ....the facts of the article remain. as should the article remain in wikipedia. you have changed your argument. first you said it did not have enough notoriety. now you say it is because of advertising. that is inconsistent. now as to your latest additional criticism of "no independent sources". --the wiki documentation concerning book articles mentions that Google Books counts on that score. ....your user page says you are an "inclusionist". --so your agruements are very strange indeed. -- programmabilities ( talk) 09:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply
-- programmabilities ( talk) 17:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC) reply
-- programmabilities ( talk) 07:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply