Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific American Library


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Aoidh (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Scientific American Library

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

This was a redirect until recently. The topic is adequately covered in the Books section of the main Scientific American article but an attempt to restore the redirect has been reverted so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Education. Mccapra (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The notability is already sufficient. There are also articles of the same type like
 * Princeton Science Library
 * Science Masters series
 * --Htmlzycq (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I find the block-of-text list of titles in the main Scientific American article unhelpful, but I like the links to notable authors in the new article. Would it be appropriate to replace the text in the main article with the better text from here? Or would that make the main article too large, or give this undue weight? Incidentally, the rest of the book section in the main article could do with clarification too: is the single bulleted item the output of the 2010 publishing imprint named above, or a third, separate venture? Elemimele (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, listing topics like this is not very helpful.
 * "The Animal Mind; Atmosphere, Climate, and Change; Beyond the Third Dimension; Cosmic Clouds; Cycles of Life • Civilization and the Biosphere; The Discovery of Subatomic Particles; Diversity and the Tropical Rain Forest; Earthquakes and Geological Discovery; Exploring Planetary Worlds; Gravity's Fatal Attraction; Fire; Fossils and the History of Life; From Quarks to the Cosmos; A Guided Tour of the Living Cell; Human Diversity; Perception; The Solar System; Sun and Earth"


 * In contrast, listing books and authors is more convenient to access.
 * But according to Scientific American Library | LibraryThing, at least 70 books need to be listed, which is too large for the main article. Htmlzycq (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep From Stand-alone lists: "Lists of works include bibliographies and discographies. Bibliographies are a list of relevant references for a subject area, including books, journal articles, and web articles; discographies are a listing of all recordings on which a musician or singer features, or may be compiled based on genre or record label" This is a bibliography of all books published under the Scientific American Library book series. Since there are at least 70 books in the series, this is a valid spinoff from Scientific American to avoid undue weight in that article. Here are book reviews for books published in the Scientific American Library series as well as sources that discuss the series more generally:    The article notes: "A number of CD-ROMs are reviewed including 'A.D.A.M. The Inside Story,' 'Digital Humans' and 'Scientific American Library: The Planets.'"  The review notes: "Plants are expert engineers and organic chemists that can move without muscles and nerves, tell time, and even have a busy social life in Arthur W. Galston's Life Processes of Plants. This text is one of the series of topics books published by the Scientific American Library, which is known for its engaging inside views of current fronts of scientific discovery."  </li> <li> The article notes: "The many works in the Scientific American Library will soon be making the transition to CD-ROM, thanks to Byron Presis Multimedia. The CD-ROM version of the Scientific American Library will include many separate discs; the library includes 45 printed titles. The texts are targeted at the general reader, and are authored by some of the top names in science."</li> <li></li> <li> The review notes: "Byron Preiss Multimedia's $54.95 Scientific American Library: The Planets and Maris Multimedia's $54.95 RedShift 2 are educational packages that let amateur astronomers explore the solar system."</li> <li></li> <li></li> <li> The abstract notes: 'The Planets' is the latest addition to the Scientific American Library. The nicely designed and easy-to-navigate CD-ROM, an ultimate tour of the solar system, is composed of the 'Planetary Museum,' 'Virtual Solar System,' 'Planetary Traveler, 'Observatory' and the book 'Seeing the Solar System.'"</li> <li></li> <li> The article notes: "Byron Preiss Multimedia will develop CD-ROM versions of the Scientific American Library, published by W.H. Freeman. Written for the general reader by distinguished scientists and illustrated with the latest in scientific graphics, the venture marks W.H. Freeman's first step into electronic publishing."</li> <li></li> <li> The review notes: "A Short History of the Universe is the latest addition to the Scientific American Library of Science."</li> <li></li> <li></li> <li> The review notes: "Two programs in one! This deluxe CD-ROM set from the Scientific American Library features The Universe and The Planets in a single package, for both Windows 95 and Macintosh computers."</li> <li></li> </ol> Cunard (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Keep as a valid split from the parent article. This article is big enough to stand alone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. On grounds of list size it seems a valid content split. As the article stands it doesn't come across as informative presentation-wise as nothing in the lead paragraph sets out reasons for the order in which the books are listed, but that's for a separate discussion. The nominator hasn't directly mentioned notability, but under WP:SPLIT this article is required to pass notability guidelines. My understanding is that the series would need reliable, independent sources commenting on/reviewing the whole series or at least a part of the series, not just the books individually and I'm not sure content in the links provided by Cunard sufficiently does so. Probably more out there but I've found little, so reserving judgement. Rupples (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * From Notability, "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." Manual of Style/Lists lists Manual of Style/Lists, which says, "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." It also lists Manual of Style/Lists, which says, "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia." Scientific American Library is "a valuable information source" and "contain[s] internally linked terms". It provides a bibliography of the books published under the Scientific American Library series and includes the blue links and interlanguage links of the books' authors. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cunard. Thought it strange notability not mentioned in the nomination. Given this, I recommend to Keep this as a separate article owing to the size of the list and space for potentially more detail to be added. Rupples (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.