Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biological Physics


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 22:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Biological Physics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be a random book by a non-notable author, added when the Wikipedia world was young in 2004. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - article does not indicate that subject meets WP:BKCRIT criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article already had one good reference, a review of the book in Nature, and I just added three more reviews from other reliable journals. So it clearly passes WP:BKCRIT #1 (subject of two or more non-trivial published reviews) and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per David Eppstein's multiple review finds. --Mark viking (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * keep per David Eppsteins comment, and the nominator says the author is non-notable, but he has his own Wikipedia article David Goodsell. Christian75 (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Author non-notable - David Goodsell did art for the book. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry; you are right Christian75 (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have a Wikipedia article, but that doesn't mean he's not notable. As a fellow of the APS he passes WP:PROF and his high citation counts likely also give him a pass of #C1. He also won a notable award, the Emily M. Gray Award. In any case, it's not very relevant to the separate notability of this book. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * SNOW Keep in light of David Eppstein's findings. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.