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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Periodic Table (Simon Basher book)[edit]

The Periodic Table (Simon Basher book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination by anon user. The rationale (with my bolding) is Fails notability for books. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC) PS - If TenPoundHammer's reading this, it's not just you who fixes up redlinked AfDs. [reply]

• Delete, I have failed to find any WP:RS discussing this book, just some listings on publisher and retailer web sites. The author does not have a Wikipedia article so a redirect is not possible at present. Clearly fails notability for books. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, article has been transformed by Beyond My Ken's excellent work. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Notifications concerning this AfD have been left at these WikiProjects: Children's Literature, Education, Elements and Chemistry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This book has been favorably reviewed in Publishers Weekly, New Scientist and the website of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and has also been covered in the Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books and the Journal of Chemical Education. These links have been added to the article, which has been somewhat expanded with information from these sources and others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to cite point #10 from the section on WP:Articles for deletion called "Before nominating an article for deletion ":

If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

I think this very much applies here.

There is one other extrinsic point I wish to make. The editor who created this article is a newbie, and, at least it appears to me, is quite possibly a child or a teenager. In the spirit of WP:BITE, I do not think it is a good idea to pounce on such articles when they are benign – as this one clearly was – because it can serve to drive away new contributors from the project. I think I have shown that this book fulfills the requirements of WP:Notability (books), but even before I knew that to be the case, it seemed to me to be a bad idea for the article to be PRODed and then brought to AfD. Even if the book was only of borderline notability, the project is in no way hurt by having an article about it in the encyclopedia, but we can be hurt if we drive away new editors by not helping them and by making editing here an uncomfortable or unpleasant experience. By no means does this mean that every new article written by a new editor should be immune from scrutiny, but in this case, a little bit of common sense should have come into play, at least in my opinion. The editor who created the article did a really decent job at putting it together, and deserved to be rewarded with something other than a deletion hammer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now there are some good reviews. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Book passes due to third party reviews and the article is now in reasonable shape--Plad2 (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Enough reviews to establish notability. Thanks to Beyond My Ken --Sodabottle (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - definitely established as notable now. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability established. Airplaneman ^talk 21:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good quality references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.