Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain - Seventh Edition


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain - Seventh Edition
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I do not believe that this article about a book meets the notability guidelines for books. After searching the internet, I was unable to find any significant coverage independent of the subject, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has received any literary awards or meets any of the other criteria listed at WP:NB.

Furthermore, I am concerned with the author of the article, User:UTSWeb, which at the very least may have a COI as the external links section contains a sentence stating: "Software is available through 3rd party vendors. Universal Technical Systems, Inc. has computerized the formulas for use with either TK Solver or Excel", and also contains a link named "Roark's Formulas Product Page on UTS Website". Aka042 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: COnsidering the book is not literature, it's not surprising it hasn't received any literature awards. If anything, it would have been reviewed in engineering journals. It's possible it's required reading for engineering students as well, and may be considered a reference for engineers of many flavors. I've notified the Engineering WikiProject so that someone with more idea of what this book is—and possible sources in which it may have been reviewed or discussed—will be aware of this discussion. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Thanks for posting this over on the Engineering Wikiproject. This book is definitely notable per WP:NB point 4. However, I'm at a loss for finding any online references to support this at the moment. I can tell you that I learned about it in college and that it is held in high regards among mechanical engineers and professors. Wizard191 (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference:, Wizard191 (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article has been moved to Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain. --Aka042 (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This book is clearly an important reference work in its field. The very fact that it has been published for 70 years, with updated editions every 10 years or so, indicates its importance. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Melanie

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  03:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per the references found. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Article needs some work, but this is a standard reference work used by a multitude of Mechanical and Structural Engineers. Turbine1 (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – A search of Google Scholar, shown here, shows the publication being cited in excess of 1,300 time.  In addition ranked:
 * 10 in Books > Professional & Technical > Engineering > Materials > Strength of Materials
 * 17 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Physics > Nanostructures
 * 17 in Books > Science > Physics > Nanostructures

as shown here. Hope this helps. JAAG  Talk 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I imagine this lack of coverage by WP:RS must be endemic to many handbook articles. Look for example at the ASHRAE Handbook. I don't see any other sources covering this article other than the publisher's. The Roark manual is clearly notable because of its widespread use. Academic notability is harder to establish because a manual of formulas is, by definition, not an academic book. But that's the problem faced by many, if not all, manuals. Maybe we can change the book notability guidelines to reflect this. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:36, 5 January 2010 (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.