Deletion of The Holographic Universe

Comment: to Michael Talbot or else delete; nothing here to establish notability (as noted by proposer, fails ). &nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: to Michael Talbot per dearth of independent critical coverage - ; the author looks notable enough for , and the book is certainly notable to him
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NB||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: Fails . The only notable review that I could find was the one in Library Journal, and I couldn't even read the entire piece, just an excerpt. But the notability guidelines specify that there must be 2 independent reviews. Popularity listings at online bookstores such as Amazon.com are not a good indicator of notability. For instance, Being and Nothingness is listed as 11th in popularity for metaphysics and Meditations on First Philosophy as 23rd &mdash; both of which are ''much'' more notable than The Holographic Universe. Google hits are a poor way to judge notability for fringe topics. Websites are cheap/free, so anyone can make one by repeating the same non-notable material found on the other 1000s just like them. The fact that you can find links to fringy stuff on Google is a lot like finding porn: If you didn't see it before, you weren't even pretending to look. In my opinion, none of the links provided in the Google search link above could be a reliable source in the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)