Deletion of Science of morality

Comment: No valid grounds for deletion were given. Theory of relativity was also "one person's theory". Should we delete it or merge that page as well? ''"The article is essentially about one person's theory"'' is no argument at all. The article may have some minor  issues (I'm not claiming it does), but the subject is clearly notablehttp://www.google.com/search?q=Science%20of%20morality, sufficiently neutral, and perfectly valid. The page can obviously be improved, but that should be solved through regular editing. As for the idea of merging, the Moral Landscape is only one of hundreds of works that deal with the subject, and even though the pages may have a bit of overlap, the scope of the article clearly goes way beyond the subject of Sam Harris' latest book
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: There's the thing, “it seems to ignore everything that's happened in metaethics in the past century or so”. Harris characterizes “philosophizing” as mere solipsism and he explicitly tried to make an end-run around it. I think we would need to cite philosophical  claiming him for philosophy, claiming he ''has'' a rigorous philosophical thesis, (I'm not saying it's the wrong assignment but “precisely the thesis of ethical naturalism” is fairly broad... it may have accumulated some unclaimed baggage in the last hundred years). I think it's prudent, given that Harris makes no pretense whatsoever of engaging in professional philosophical discourse. To Harris, it's about science, and his advice to the scientist, as quoted in the ethical naturalism article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)