Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics of the Impossible

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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Physics of the Impossible

This article is about a book, which does not meet WP notability criteria, WP:NB. In particular, Refs. 1=11, 2 and 12 do not qualify for reason 1. As to reason 5, even if the author was a prominent scientist (which is a separate issue) it does not mean this book is notable. Materialscientist (talk) 09:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least one necessary mention of this book conveying notability would be its coverage on BBC Radio 4, Start the Week, 1st June 2009 Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient notability.--Vejvančický (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The German translation, "Die Physik des Unmöglichen", was book of the week in Die Welt and subject to hundreds of newspaper articles. --Pgallert (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Book fails to meet WP:BOOK; the article is padded with inappropriately extensive recounts of two pieces of media coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #1: There is serious discussion of this book in at least three major news channels (NYT, Seattle Times, Radio 4). Just why isn't that conferring notability on it, according to WP:BOOK #1?

Comment #2: Lousy article, padded like crazy. So we fix that by editing, it's no grounds for deletion.
I heard the Radio 4 broadcast, didn't like this book and hated Michio Kaku as an interviewee. That's all just WP:IDONTLIKEIT though, and we should be careful not to go there. Clearly some editors don't want this article, but I'm not seeing strong policy-based arguments for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The press coverage section is a problem that seems to have resulted from a newbie misunderstanding of how an article establishes notability; in that respect it's no different than assorted random stubs that start with the language "X is notable because...". That part is fixable. Moreover, I've seen additional press coverage of the book that could supplement the coverage already mentioned (the author was doing the rounds of the morning shows at one point). However, the present article does have a problem of focus; in particular, discussion of the "impossible" concepts in the books is being used as a platform to argue for the importance or plausibility of concepts discussed in the book, which is inappropriate. My opinion of "keep" is contingent on the absence of such material. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obviously notable, a quick google search turns up extensive writing about the book. [1] [2] [3] To the nominator... there is no need to extensively quote policy, a link to WP:NB is plenty. I hope you don't mind that I did so. Gigs (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion. Gigs (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A New York Times bestseller, #10 in its category [4], with lengthy reviews from several reliable and independent sources. Satisfies WP:N. Satisfies criterion #1 of WP:NB. Edison (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good work, Gigs. It's had a significant amount of press coverage. Fences and windows (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~and snow~~ ~~I am starting to notice a trend lately of lots of articles being taken to AfD that are patently invalid candidates that a two second search would reveal. This is enshrined~~ Relatively new user and those not very familiar with deletion process may not be aware that ~~in multiple~~ policy strongly recommends that users look for sources first before taking an article to AfD, e.g., from AfD: "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." Articles taken to AfD are often improved by the process, though a better way of cleaning them up is through normal editing processes AfD is not an article cleanup brigade and this is a waste of everyone's time. We look first—not at what's in the article but what's in the wider world before nominating. This AfD is a sterling example of why that should be followed. The subject here is patently notable as a quick search of easily accessed online sources shows. For example: 101,000 web hits for the name in quotes and the author to avoid false positives; 14 other books discussing it when it only came out in 2008; 71 Google news hits; 19 articles in the New York Times where it is a bestseller; #881 at Amazon (that is astronomical). ~~If this doesn't meet WP:BK I don't know what does (and I wrote WP:BK).~~ This meets WP:BK in spades and should probably be snowed as there no reason to keep it open longer than necessary simply for processes' sake.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be patient to others' mistakes, we all learn from them. You did not have to waste Your time here. IMHO, quality is what WP is still lacking. The quality of the discussed article has been drastically improved since nomination, thus the efforts were not in vain. One reason for Afd to appear was the authors could not explain why the article is notable (if you look around, most still can't). Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - I was too harsh in my tone. While I stand by the thrust of what I was saying, I apologize for my manner of saying it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These responses from Materialscientist and Fuhghettaboutit reminded that I want to propose that there be a set of notability requirements, at Wikipedia, for non fiction books, in the popular science category. I can't speak for other disciplines, but non-fiction science rates some sort of notability category. For example, who is going to make a dramatic feature film from popularized non fiction physics books. And, these science books are probably not going to end up in a literature course at a university. There is no plot to summarize, and is not likely to win a major literary award, etc., etc. I am surprised that this has not been brought up before. The current notablility guidelines are stacked against these types of books. On that note - if anyone has any ideas about what these proposed notablility requirements should be, I am open to suggestions, so I can present with something in hand. Feel free to leave suggestions at my talk page. Ti-30X (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BK is intentionally written in the disjunctive, i.e., the criteria are prefaced by the language "one or more of the following criteria".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. thanks. So, you are saying there is no need for such guidelines. Got it. Ti-30X (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This book is a valuable contribution by communicating current physics and technology to the general reader. And second, for all the reasons stated in the previous post. Ti-30X (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Largely as above. This looks like a good article for WP, and I don't think it should be deleted. A.C. Norman (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Highly notable article. -down load ׀ sign! 03:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The AfD nomination is "less than perfect", as it squarely concerns if notability was established in the article, not if it reasonably could be established, for instance carrying out some background searches to reveal any potential. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another example of why we should require WP:BEFORE. DGG (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what, threat of blocks? As near as I can tell, it's already required from a community standpoint. People who ignore it get strong rebukes, just as this AfD drew. Gigs (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, the AfD circuit is often overloaded, with limited participation, and few people willing to actually improve articles the way you did. AfD is simply not a good venue for article improvement. Power.corrupts (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the Physics of Impossible talk page here for more evidence of notability. Ti-30X (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable book by a definitely notable physicist. -- œ ^™ 09:11, 10 June 2009 (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.