Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numerical Analysis (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   delete. joe deckertalk to me 17:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Numerical Analysis (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article began as a list of errata for an undergraduate textbook and other inappropriate information. After four years it has been whittled down to two sentences. Not adequately notable. Dolphin ( t ) 05:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a common name for such textbooks. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Being a common name for such textbooks is not a reason for deletion but a reason for moving the article to a better title. I am neutral for now as my experience with numerical anaysis was 40 years ago. We need the experts to take a look. A text that has gone through 8 editions may well be notable. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I was only able to dig up one real review (it is also listed in MathSciNet but the description there only copies from the preface rather than being an independent review). The review I found was about a quite old edition that appears to be significantly different from the present one. I added it to the article, but I don't think there's a lot to draw on in the way of third-party reliable sources about the subject that would provide content for our article, and I don't think the existing sources are enough for WP:GNG. On the other hand there are maybe 150 or so papers in Google scholar that cite this book and maybe if someone combs through them carefully it would be possible to find a few of them that say something nontrivial about it rather than merely using it to source some standard algorithm. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * weak delete. A common name is no reason for deletion but being a common book might be. Other than being in the 9th edition, I see nothing indicating that this book is particularly notable at the moment. If someone can extend the article and providing convincing sources that the book is standard work in its field as well, it can be kept but in its current shape it sould be deleted.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Probably not notable by the standards described at WP:NBOOK; note that item 4 there specifically excludes textbooks.  Looking at Category:Mathematics books, I see that most books there are more notable than the average textbook.  Is there any evidence that the same is true of this book?  David Eppstein's comment above suggests that it's not impossible, but I'd like to see something more specific. Jowa fan (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:NBOOKS seems to be geared toward fiction and a math textbook is a very different animal. For standard subjects publishers churn out new editions for the lucrative college market and they are financially motivated to keep updating to reduce used book sales. These books are reviewed in publications such as the American Mathematical Monthly publish reviews because that's partly why such publications exist, and they are used a references because authors kept their copy when they originally took the course, but in reality such books cover the same material in more or less the same way and are generally interchangeable in terms of content. I happen to own a copy of the third edition by my college years (it has a pretty pastel cover) and have used it as a reference in WP articles, but I wouldn't consider it a subject of encyclopedic value.--RDBury (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? Book reviews are why the Monthly exists?  That is extremely remote from the truth, to say the least.  Look at a few issues of it. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, you said "partly", but still potentially misleading. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2011 (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.