Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Holographic Universe
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
— User:Atmoz, 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:BK (Wikipedia:Notability)