Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Principles of Exercise Therapy


 * 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. SoWhy 08:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The Principles of Exercise Therapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources except Google Books page on itself, possible promotion of book. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 *  Delete Pending - this would have a logical contender for WP:BOOKPROD but now that it's here. Under WP:NBOOK point 1 which requires 2 notable reviews - unless they are hidden in pubmed or such (I did do several searches, but nothing relevant appeared), I couldn't find suitable reviews. No other point seemed viable Nosebagbear (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey - BOOKPROD only covers Books. There have been multiple attempts to create speedy criteria for books, but so far there's been no consensus. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  18:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes much more sense - I had wondered when I first heard of it that I couldn't see why books were so special as to have their own PROD. Clearly a reason that my deleting/keeping work is spent in AfD!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem - I'd gotten excited a little that there may be a new deletion format for books that could help deal with obviously non-notable books. There's not, but hey - may be one day. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NBOOK. If someone does manage to find evidence of notability, it would need to be TNT'd anyway because it's very difficult to read as is. "Exercise also helps to reduce mental retardation and reduce the risk of mental retardation in the exercise. It is essential to exercise immune organs or adequate vascular organs in a coherent blood circulation." Huh? Natureium (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. What is there, I ask, beside reviews in specialist publications? -The Gnome (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Have shifted to pending. The reviews, while clearly very specialist, would seem to satisfy point 1 in WP:NBOOK. Anyone have a good case, otherwise? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep and WP:TROUT. Multiple book reviews (in the sort of scholarly journals that are the best sources possible for something like this) satisfy GNG and NBOOK. The number of editions alone would satisfy TBK. "Specialist publications" is not a valid argument, has no basis in policy or guideline, and is totally unacceptable because would result in Wikipedia being dumbed down into a children's encyclopedia for babies of low intelligence. All genuinely reliable sources are "specialist" in the sense being used here, because only those sources are written by people with adequate academic credentials. Indeed WP:TBK explains at some length why the "specialist" argument cannot be used. The other arguments are WP:SOFIXIT. A search for "The Principles of Exercise Therapy"+review brings up additional book reviews such as the South African Journal of Physiotherapy . James500 (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment ...breathe James500. Given the state of the article when it was submitted, even WP:SOFIXIT fell through the floor, though it is an actual functional state now thanks to its creator and ReaderofthePack. Personally I find the "Number of Eds" bit of WP:TXTBKS an indication of downright desperation in notability sourcing, given its citation numbers for various versions will be accessible, and can be checked either by me when I get some time or anyone else feeling generous. In any case, I believe the refs are fine (in that you are right, if anything academic refs should be judged more highly, though I suppose assessing true lack of COI is even harder, AGF applies externally, too). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) Counting the number of editions is the traditional way of assessing the level of sales that a book has achieved. The logic is that if a book goes through lots of editions this normally means it is selling lots of copies. And if it is selling, it normally also follows that it is highly regarded, because the academics, librarians and professionals/practitioners who buy these types of works, and who prepare course reading lists for students, are capable of differentiating a good book from a bad one. (2) My understanding is that GScholar citation counts are of limited use for older works. For example, GScholar does not provide an accurate citation count for some nineteenth century textbooks because it simply does not seem to know about most of the reviews and citations. I suspect you might have similar problems for books first published in the 1950s, like this one, long before the internet became popular. In any event, I think the citations I can see listed there are sufficient anyway. James500 (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Editions has nothing to do with how many copies are sold. It is based on updates to the material. Natureium (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I am afraid you are in error. Try searching for "number of editions"+popularity or "number of editions"+success in GBooks and you come up with a large number of sources, like this one all saying the same thing. Likewise it has been said that "No fairer way can be devised of judging of an author's popularity, than by taking the number of editions which have been published of his works" (quoting this mainly because its public domain; the copyrighted sources all say the same thing). And since we know the average number of copies for an edition, we can use the number of editions to estimate the level of sales. The bottom line is that a publisher will not normally print a new edition of a book if the last edition sold poorly. Because he normally wants to make money, and needs to sell as many copies as possible to do that. James500 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, it is a university text ie. Kinesiology 1 pp21-24, Bachelor of Physiotherapy, Books Recommended, p 19, Bachelor of Physiotherapy, pp 61, 117, 121, Bachelor of Physiotherapy pp 12, 21, plus it would be nice if the nominator in future remembers WP:CONTN - "Article content does not determine notability", also that the article creator is a relatively new editor (no bitey:))), and that english appears to be their 2nd language. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * although as footnote 7. of nbook may preclude above, the reviews still means its notable:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2018 (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.