Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Our Understanding of the Universe


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Our Understanding of the Universe

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Pretty sure this does not meet the notability criterion. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This book seems to be covered by the "acedemic book" section of WP:Notability (books) in that it is published by an academic press (Oxford press) and it is widely cited in other academic publications (both journal articles and other books). Some of these other books discuss its contents in some detail for example:, , . Google scholar gives 32 publications that cite this book as a reference. According to Amazon the book has been reviewed by both Publishers Weekly and Library Journal. The article probably needs to cite some of this secondary material, but it doesn't seem to have a notability problem. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is POV, OR and puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep and trim. Very well known book by major author --in over one thousand worldCat libraries.  Reviews are needed, but they should be easy enough to find. The writing in the article looks   like copypaste to me, and needs to be rewritten so it describes the book, not advocates the theory.    DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is poorly structured and doesnt give indication of notability (and thus deserves a tag for that), but is published by major presses, and author is notable. POV, puffery are not reasons for deletion unless the subject is hopelessly unsalvageable. OR is grounds for deletion, but this isnt OR, unless the books summary is. that can be trimmed. heres OR for you: Kurt Godel proposed the same idea while in talks with einstein, and theres even a book on the subject," A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein" by Palle Yourgrau . i bet this book mentions godel. combining these 2 books would be OR. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Article clearly meets notability criteria per Rusty Cashman. It needs verification from reliable sources, but said sources clearly exist.  Everything else is an editing problem, not a reason for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Clearly passes WP:BK with extensive reviews such as this one by Ilya Prigogine for The Times Higher Education Supplement, this in The New York Times and this in The Boston Globe. No disrespect intended to Headbomb and Xxanthippe, but I prefer to accept a Nobel Laureate's judgment over theirs about the notability of this book it its field. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article implies that the book is mainstream science, a view rejected by Prigogine who views it, at best, as speculative philosophy. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
 * That's a problem that can be fixed by editing, not a reason to delete the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2009 (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.