Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental astronomy book


 * 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   keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — Theo polisme  02:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental astronomy book

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable textbook: WP:NBOOK Ratzd&#39;mishukribo (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Also including for the same reason:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Fundamental Astronomy. I'm not sure what the guidelines are for textbooks but couple observations:
 * 1. Found over 162 Wikipedia articles cite/mention the book (based on a Google search "site:wikipedia.org"). That's a lot of potential back links.
 * 2. Google shows it widely used in syllabus at top schools like Harvard and many other schools.
 * 3. It is listed here (Harvard) in a "core list of Astronomy books" to assist librarians in building astrophysics collections.
 * 4. Per WP:NBOOK #1, it has been widely reviewed in reliable sources (academic journals etc). I added a few as example, but there are about 20 to 25 professional reviews at least. Most of them can be found by doing this Google search: review "Fundamental Astronomy" site: h ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu
 * 5. This (unreliable but interesting) post "is a compilation of books recommended by sci.physics (USENET) participants as the 'standard' or 'classic' texts" - it is among 1 of 4 Astronomy books to make the list.
 * All this adds up to probably notable even if the sourcing is not yet up to par, there is enough ancillary evidence to suggest it is (or was) a "standard" or "classic" text of the field, and we should give the article more time to develop (it was recently created). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep A Question and Answer Guide to Astronomy. This is not a textbook just a normal book "intended for a general audience". Per WP:NBOOK #1, it has been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources (reviews in this case). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I've moved the page to Fundamental Astronomy (book), the suitable title format for a book name. Ratzd&#39;mishukribo (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep both per Green Cardamom. --Hmich176 (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant information is missing in the articles (which need to be rewritten in part to indicate any sort of significance) but in any case notability has been established, so I withdraw my nomination. Ratzd&#39;mishukribo (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2012 (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.