Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handbook of Electrochemistry


 * 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 no consensus. While numerically, the deletes outweight the keeps, there's a situation stemming from one of them, specifically further saying that "There is no debate on the notability of the subject itself, just the Wiki page and how it is presented" which is part of what brings us back into no consensus territory, as do the refutations of "fails GNG easily" with statistics on the number of citations. While the article needs improvement, especially with regard to sourcing, there is no clear consensus that this material should be deleted. Star  Mississippi  19:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Handbook of Electrochemistry

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Insignificant textbook that has basically no notability whatsoever, except perhaps within a teeny tiny circle of electochemists. It's also unsourced, and while it could be sourced, there's no point in doing so since it isn't notable. -- Tautomers (T C) 07:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Reliable secondary sources independent of the subject must be published and present in order to demonstrate the ultimate element of notability: significant coverage. These secondary sources are simply not present, indicating that general notability guidelines and WP:N are not met. The book does not appear to have been the subject of sources independent of the book itself, and the very few sources available are trivial at best. No major awards or other criteria to the book criteria for notability are met, and so this article should be deleted - Such-change47 (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: No reliable sources independent of its publisher (Elsevier) are cited. Does not meet WP:GNG. Multi7001 (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG easily. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not know the justification for calling  electrochemistry "a teeny tiny circle.".)  It's a major branch of science with multiple high ranking journals and notable researchers--we have articles on over 30.  (and see also Category:Electrochemistry.)  As for this book: it's in the ref erences for 16 WP articles.  According to  Worldcat there are copies in over 1000 libraries, and it seems to be by far the most widely held general work in the entire subject--the nearest are two well known textbooks with holdings in the 700s. Google scholar also shows it the most cited general work in the field, with 1310 citations (the runner-up has 526) .  The book was published in 2006, which considering the very sparse reviews of such works, makes finding one online extremely unlikely..
 * But in any case, the editor, Cynthia Zoski,  is notable, and this can be used as the start of an article on her.    DGG' ( talk ) 07:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * DGG, there are only two external sources in the page; one is of the purported official website that is self-published by the subject, and the other is of an ISBN identifier that is given to any publishing entity at no discretion. There needs to be reliable sources listed. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 17: 59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)n
 * GNG andNBOOK areguidelines, and the nature of a guideline is that there are exceptions; repeated attempts to make GNG into policy have failed. It is reasonable that the major handbook on a major branch of science should have an article, and I think I;ve shown that it is the major handbook. We don't even have to invoke IAR. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no debate on the notability of the subject itself, just the Wiki page and how it is presented. If the subject is said to be of a major scientific handbook, there needs to be at least an independent (outside of the publisher), reliable source to validate that. Pages in the articlespace generally cannot be left without any sources. There isn't nearly any coverage of it on Google News or in any major mass media but it is possible you may find sources through a traditional search. Multi7001 (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * To me, clear keep per reasons stated by ; the stated reason, lack of notability, is false; the textbook has over 1316 citations on Google scholar as mentioned by DGG. Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Caleb Stanford, I know of many academic figures and bodies of published scientific work that have thousands of citations but do not meet the criteria for inclusion. It depends on the context; and in this case, there seems to be a lack of reliable and independent sources to validate the subject is of rare significance in its industry. While the subject may possibly be notable, there needs to be external references to confirm that. Multi7001 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not know of any  academic figures) that have thousands of citations that do not meet our criteria for inclusion . That sort of citations shows influence, and influence is what meets WP:PROF. I certainly do know many thousands of each that we do not yet include. I wish I had time to work on them. I thin similar hold with books, but we perhaps need to explicitly modify WP:PROF to make it clearer in the case of textbooks, orperja[s modify WP:BOOK to make ti clear, as an alternative to reviews. . As is, I thin kit's clearly ocnsistent with WP practice at both criteria. There's a misunderstanding that WP:GNG applies to everything, Read it. It's one part of a guideline. The policy, the correct policy I continue to support, is NOTINDISCRIMINATE.  DGG ( talk ) 11:28, 14 January 2022 (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.