Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prodded; deprodded without reason or addressing concerns, which still apply: no indication of notability. No proper refs – both are to the book which can't be a RS about itself – and reads like the blurb from the back of the book, not encyclopaedic content. Ignoring this promotional content there's nothing that indicates it's at all notable. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed the "blurb from the back of the book" and left only one reference. The page now is on the yesterday state, and this article lived successfully in this state for many years before. Please remove nomination for deletion, which is not good for readers. I from my side will try to write in several days a standard article about this concrete book Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry, using other many articles about other encyclopedias in Wikipedia, as examples. Also, I have read the Guide for deletion and understand the Wiki policy. Is this a way out? Thank you very much. Duplij (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This looks like a likely copyvio of a publisher's blurb, e.g,Powell's publisher comments. Accordingly, the prose seems purely promotional. I could find no news or reviews for this book. The books has generated 8 GScholar citations, which is negligible for an active field like supersymmetry and and string theory. In short, no notability based on either independent reliable sources or citations. The article has recently been edited by Duplij, who is likely the first author of the book. Copyvio, no notability per WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, and conflict of interest, per WP:COI, all indicate that this should be deleted. Update As I was writing this, the copyvio was removed, so this criticism no longer applies. --Mark viking (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes, I am the Editor-compiler of this book, but this is not a reason not to write about the book. Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry was written by 275 people, not by me only. This article in Wikipedia was not created by me, but I wanted only to improve it. And I can do it along the rules of Wikipedia. 2) About notability, there is some incorrectess in 2 orders of magnitude. Please have now a thorough look to GScholar - you can see 499 citations, which is much more than 8 !!!... 3) Also I know that the book Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry was bought by many leading scientists privately, and it is on their tables for everyday use. I know that definitely, because I saw the book, during my visits, lectures and seminars in USA, France, Poland and Germany for many years. And this true use of the book is independent of any formal numbers. 4) Also all libraries of Universities which have Phys. and Math. Departments have Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry. There is no conflict of interests with anybody, if an article about Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry which will satisfy the rules, will be in Wikipedia. 5) If it will help to solve the situation positively, I can ask leading world specialists in supersymmetry to send you (to any e-address, which you give) a short 'independent' e-mail with support of a small article about 560 pages book in Wikipedia according to its rules. By the way, the Second Edition of Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry is planned for the next year. So this project is alive, developed and will be an effective and useful reference for many scientists worldwide, as all other Encyclopedias which are already described in Wikipedia. Thank you. Duplij (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Update to your Update. If copyvo is not applied and the notability is explained, also there are no any COI, maybe you allow me to write a small article along the Wikipedia rules about the book for which I spent 10 best years of my life. To write such an article is also a hard task for several days. Please, understand me. Thank you. -- Duplij (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Duplij. Thanks for the update on the number of references. I was searching on the full book title, but it appears that most references just use the shortened title "Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry". Notability of articles is based on the availability of multiple in-depth independent reliable sources that have written about the book. To learn more about notability standards and guidelines, please take a look at WP:Notability and WP:GNG. To learn more about what constitutes a reliable source, please see WP:RS. In this case, the most likely reliable sources would be reviews of the book by people unconnected with the book, published by reputable sources like academic publishers. I was unable to find any, but perhaps I did not search deeply enough. Personal testimonials sent to me or any other editor won't help establish notability. With due respect, you do have a conflict of interest. As first author, you may receive some financial compensation from sales of the book and you certainly gain reputation if the book is successfully promoted. Please see WP:COI to learn more about conflict of interest and how it is dealt with at WP. Finally, this discussion runs for seven days from initial posting, so don't feel this is a race against time. Other WP editors will also comment on this article until a consensus is reached. --Mark viking (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mark. Thank you for your notes. We already wrote twice more text than the possible article under discussion. I try to reply. 1) The using of short title is not a "nonnotability". It is OK in science.2) Everybody knows, how the reviews are written. There are formal requests, and these reviews are usually made by formal agreements, they usually are weakly connected with real significance of a book. Everybody knows. My book Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry is really used, and all scientists know it. When they use they do not have time to review, they work with it. The reviews are usually done by people who something far from the subject in reality. Therefore, this is also not an argument. 3) If somebody else will write about Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry, then it will be no COI, as I understood. Therefore, the first step, could you leave the article on its state writen by somebody else before my corrections, e.g on the date: 04:08, 9 January 2013‎ Addbot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (735 bytes). Then other people (not me) maybe will write a good wiki article which will satisfy all the requirements. So I ask you not to remove this  term/article Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry for possible further extensions and writing - maybe up to 1 page of text. Thank you. --Duplij (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to work on it that is not a block on deletion. Rather if it is deleted then after you can request it is undeleted to your user space, where you and other editors can work on it for as long as you want, to try and fix the problems with it that caused it to be deleted.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Let's see if I understand the conversation so far: the person supporting this article, apparently the author, cannot find any references which support notability (or the book version) as defined by Wikipedia. Offering as proof "all scientists know it [is really used]" is precisely what is not allowed in Wikipedia. Perhaps it's a great book, but it fails notability.--Larry (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete The publisher's website references one review (P. D. F. Ion, Mathematical Reviews, Issue 2005 m) but that's not enough to establish notability. It does appear to be occasionally cited by people, appears in bibliographies, and is held in many university libraries (see WorldCat). But it's still not quite notable. The lack of reliable, referenced information in the present article also suggests deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please, not delete... 1) Yes, there exists a very good review by P.D.F. Ion in the highest level Mathematical Reviews of AMS. I have no access to its full version, but maybe you can. Please, read the full version. This is the most notable place, where a math book can be reviewed and the right highest place for "notability". 2) The book is cited not occasionally, but gives About 29,800 results (0.26 seconds) in Google search! 3) All University libraries have it. 4) The book is written by 275 professionals for professionals (who really work now in this subject and present concrete current and established results) including a Nobel Prize Winner Gerard 't Hooft. The Advisory Board consists of 23 Members, most of them are famous and noble scientists, Deans and inventors of new formulas named by their names (the same can be said about many of ordinary contributors). The Editor Warren Siegel is listed in Wikipedia, as a famous scientist. The Editor Jonathan Bagger is a Vice Provost at The Johns Hopkins University, a member of the National Research Council's Board on Physics and Astronomy and vice chair of the Energy Department/National Science Foundation High Energy Physics Advisory Panel. Is that quite notable? 5) It is obviously, that the article in this one sentence form is not a good reference.
 * I agree with the above positive ideas of JohnBlackburne.
 * Therefore, I ask you not to delete this entry, but allow me to prepare a standard wiki normal size article (obviously, not one sentence or resume copied from other place). When you agree, I will start this hard work, because it requires too much additional time and special efforts. I would be happy to collaborate with you in future sharing my knowledge and experience to improve your very important project Wikipedia. Thank you very much. --Duplij (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable; cited only 13 times. Fails WP:NBOOK. -- 101.119.15.94 (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I've searched the following commercial databases for "Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry" and found 0 hits: Gale Academic OneFile, Gale General OneFile, InfoTrac, JSTOR, ProQuest, Booklist, NewsBank, Ebsco MasterFile Complete, Ebsco Newspaper Source Plus. These represents 10s of thousands of newspapers, journals and magazines over the last 50+ years, many of them specialized. The Google Scholar citations and library holdings are interesting but not notable according to WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Need multiple book reviews in reliable sources (how many "multiple" depending on the quality of the sources). Notability on Wikipedia operates much like the Google search algorithm, it's based on what other people say about a topic. The more other people have written about something, the more notable it becomes, in the same way the more a web page is linked to by other websites, the higher in the search results it's listed. Bibliography citations are interesting in this regard, but not enough alone. Two more reviews I'd probably vote keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why a book gets an article if it isn't a famous work (like A Tale of Two Cities). Instead, this book seems like an appropriate reference to be cited in relevant articles.  However, I don't feel strongly either way and prefer to let others decide about deletion. Zaslav (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not delete; I understand that this book is somewhat specialized, but it contains many interesting articles written by the most autoritative authors in the field of supersymmetry. As such, this reference is very important for all the people working in this particular field (R. Casalbuoni), 19 October 2013.151.41.72.234 (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC) — 151.41.72.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do not delete. This is a highly specialized encyclopedia. It will never have a lot of links. We have to support all kind of books, not just about pop music with big number of links. VodoRiz (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviews/refs are here - no reasons to delete. I have observed that there are reviews from the top notable Mathematical Reviews and ZMath added. There exist no more higher places for any phys/math book to be reviewed. Also, there are many references from Wiki entries to this article. The text in the second box on the top of the entry "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and its consequence is not actual now, because all my text was removed, and changed were done by somebody else. Therefore, I am not a main contributor to this article at all. This article now is fully and independently being rewritten by other people in the framework of the WikiProject Books. This requires some time. Also, there are many votes for not to delete. Duplij (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have stricken your second !vote; you only get to !vote once. As for references, i.e. links, from other articles, there are few, half of which you added – that is how I noticed this page. And the !votes not to delete are all from single purpose accounts, i.e. editors (including yourself) who have made little or no other contribution to the encyclopaedia.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * - Sorry, you are not right: no editors are involved here, people use single purpose accounts for their own reasons. The other two SUSY editors are on the top of U.S. and world science, they are too notable and noble to be in such discussions. I am here openly and sincerely tring to develop your project Wikipedia. --Duplij (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Do not delete Many independent researchers need this work to continue their research and many of us are not aware of this compilation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.248 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)  — 174.89.41.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.124.23 (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the record is well written and deserves publication. The search for supersymmetry is a very important task for the years to come. The Editor of the book has done an excellent job for the community. Please "do not delete it".

wikipedias own notability criteria should be assessed differently from books for the general public. As recommended in the section on Academic and technical books, it is published by an academic publisher, is widely cited in academic articles, and is widely used by supersymmetry researchers. Also, its editors are themselves quite notable within the field.--Schrocat.academic (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not delete This is a specialised academic reference and under


 * Do not delete This is a highly specialised reference book, it cannot be assessed using the same standards as books for the general public. 500 citations for such a technical book is no small number. Also it is very likely that once the book has been used as an entry point to the literature on some topic, authors prefer to cite the original works - it is the most sensible thing to do. It is a book of very high value containing contributions by many of the top scientists in the field. It definitely deserves to be recorded in Wikipedia. Yougeeaw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please save. I have this book and use it from time to time. It is useful just for me. I do not see any reason, why to delete the entry about it from Wikipedia. 37.52.150.109 (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — 37.52.150.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

'Do not delete I was surprised to see that this book is being considered for deletion. I have the impression that the book is often in use, among practioners in supersymmetry. Why delete a big work which has proved to be so useful in the actual research community? 2.150.32.82 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — 2.150.32.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.