Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conquering Chemistry

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August &#9742; 01:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Conquering Chemistry
Please don't tell me that textbooks are the next inherently notable thing. Denni &#9775; 01:43, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
 * I don't know. We'll have to figure it out on a case-by-case basis for now. But this one is definately not notable, so delete. Alr 02:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; non-notable. 91 googles. Jaxl | talk 02:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS.— Encephalon |  &zeta;   07:54:36, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
 * Well, Amazon's heard of at least the first two. -Splash 18:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow, Splash.— Encephalon |  &zeta;   08:10:51, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
 * Delete Dottore So 13:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing is notable here. --Bhadani 15:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete most books by themselves are not-notable. If the author had an article, and that was kept, this could be mentioned there. -Splash 18:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep published by McGraw-Hill, Sydney, 2000. This passes the thousands of people test. WP aint paper. Klonimus 21:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Jachin 21:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm sure there are a lot of australian students out there who use this textbook, and would therefore be interested in reading about it ...which is enough for me.-Wandering oojah 05:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment If this does get deleted then Feuerwerk and Excel study guides ought to be considered as well. Caerwine 08:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * weak delete Not sure about this... seems that a published book is notable when a certain number are printed Roodog2k 00:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable textbook.  Claims of being most popular not sourced. Quale 16:17, 31 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.