Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concepts of 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 delete.  Sandstein  17:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Concepts of Physics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability presented in the article. A WP:BEFORE search gives a few articles on the author with passing mentions that it is used for the IIT entrance exams in India (e.g., ), but the textbook does not have WP:GNG-level notability.

Similar to this AfD on another IIT entrance exam textbook. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article should be deleted. Unimportant data not required by any general reader.Lichinsol (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Struck sock vote. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Unexceptional textbook. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Though not familiar with book notability guidelines on Wikipedia, I'll defer to the proponent and those who concur. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet the criteria for WP:NBOOK and WP:TEXTBOOKS. I checked this on Google Scholar. It does not seem to be highly cited, with only 24 citations, . I checked World Cat and it seems to be listed in only four university libraries . Three of these are in U.S and one is in India. Not much traction for a book published in 1999. It also doesn't seem to have gone past this edition - which would seem to mean it is outdated . There is a related title published in 1993 of which this could be a later edition. And again, only four university libraries carry this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep per WP:NBOOK and WP:TEXTBOOKS. One of the above links says that millions of copies have been sold . The second link says this book is the "most read textbook for high school physics" and is "widely considered the Bible of Physics" (probably in India) . Because this is a high school textbook, this would explain why it is not in many university libraries. I'm thinking of changing my Ivote. Stay tuned. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed that as well, but these sources still aren't really significant coverage on the actual textbook and those claims don't quite support the other points of WP:BOOKCRIT. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The coverage appears to be significant enough, in this instance, to pass notability criteria for books per WP:TEXTBOOKS. Also, it does meet WP:BOOKCRIT #1 and #5 according to the sources. Common sense is also applicable per WP:TEXTBOOKS. What I mean is, occasionally, some things don't fit neatly into the notability criteria. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that the sources suggest anything remotely close to BOOKCRIT #5, which is about the author being so notable that all of their works are too. Sure, WP:TEXTBOOKS tells us that common sense applies. Being a popular high school physics textbook doesn't fit the notability bill in my opinion though. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I misread BOOKCRIT #5, I thought it said something else. However, the subject is still applicable per  BOOKCRIT #1. Per WP:TEXTBOOKS, where not only common sense applies but also it is surprisingly covered in the media (as mentioned above), it has been influential since 1999,  and "has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions" - since it was published. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , I agree. I see no problem with deleting this book. I thought Wikipedia was not a bibliography? Doug Mehus (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Weak, because I'm just going on what I can see in the article, haven't done any research on my own.  Even if this book were notable, the article is such a mess, WP:TNT applies.  But, I am amused by the comment above that the book is "outdated" because it was published in 1996.  It covers mechanics, waves and optics ... thermodynamics, electromagnetism, modern physics and relativity.  What could possibly have changed about any of those topics since my 40-year old copy of Halliday and Resnick was printed?  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2019 (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.