860:
the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, suggested bases for a finding of notability include whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions.
406:, it is not necessary for it to also satisfy a specific notability guideline. The specific guidelines are intended to augment the general guideline, providing a basis for the notability of subjects that do not satisfy the general guideline but are nonetheless considered sufficiently important for inclusion. If non-compliance with subject-specific guidelines furnished an independent basis for deletion, then
786:#1 and #4. Moreover one has to consider that the formulation of that guideline primarily targets fiction and popular literature, so applying it strictly to the letter in #1 by arguing this math book was not discussed in general interest publications seems a bit nonsensical to me. In any case #4 holds as far as I can tell, i.e. there are/have been university courses being taught based on that book.--
549:. Guidelines should be applied with common sense; applying NBOOK to insist that high-level scientific works cannot be notable if they are not reviewed for general audiences fails that test. I think that part of NBOOK was intended mostly to apply to things like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" books, which if covered only in sources aimed at fans of the series would not be treated as individually notable.
207:. A widely cited, and respected, textbook on an infinitesimal approach to calculus. The book was the subject of a much-discussed field study by K. Sullivan a few years after the first edition came out, and went through two or three editions. To note is the fact that the nominator did not even bother to request improvements on the talkpage of the article.
646:, or additional works by Dauben, Artigue, and Tall cited in footnote 16 of the arxiv paper. It seems clear that this book has indeed been quite controversial, and this controversy together with the field study cited in the article this goes well beyond the more basic "subject of multiple nontrivial published reviews" standard for books. —
250:
notability include whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions."
810:
literature, or science." This relates to previous comments: a couple of editors have asserted it is "famous". If it were famous I would expect it satisfy #1 with ease, as there would be coverage outside of specialist journals: in the mainstream press for example, or at least in widely read journals such as
Science.--
429:
was intended to revolutionise the way mathematics is taught. The section about academic books is not very detailed and explicitly insists on applying common sense. In this context it's absurd to interpret "suggested bases include whether the book is published by an academic press" as ruling out a book that
909:
I would ask that we stick to discussing the article and not make assumptions or accusations about other editors' competence. But if it's famous then where is the coverage? A famous scientist is one with awards, with articles and interviews in the press etc. A famous poem is one that's known, often by
446:
In general, "at least some of these works serving a general audience" is clearly intended to keep out tiny specialist communities and fringe communities. This book seems to have been discussed widely in the entire mathematics community – which makes sense, as the mathematical community had to decide
221:
It is not a requirement of AfD that an editor first discusses it on the talk page; such a discussion is not likely to attract enough editors. The place for the discussion is here. That it is a good textbook (but not good enough to keep in print), the number of editions or that someone wrote a paper
859:
Academic books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons,
712:
This is a famous book, which received widespread discussion when it appears, and now is re-issued. (The author is the logician for whom
Wittgenstein had the greatest respect, because of his courage in thinking.) I would ask that people refrain from PRODing further articles associated with Tkuvho,
428:
The book was published by
Prindle, Weber and Schmidt. I have never heard of them, but it appears they were a publisher specialised on mathematics (especially undergraduate level) and closely related topics and went out of business in 1987. I guess they were an appropriate publisher for a book that
252:
I can't really say much about the book as I am not familiar with it. It is mostly of interest to non-standard analysis people, and that subject is off the mainstream of mathematics and logic. If it's among their two or three most important books, then it might be worth keeping it. The field study
826:
I misread #4 overlooking the word "subject", thanks for pointing that out. However in that case it is similar to the #1 case, i.e. the application of the rules primarily geared towards fiction and popular nonfiction on purely academic books makes little sense (as pointed out by Adler further up
249:
the normal rules don't apply literally but must be interpreted using common sense: "For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, suggested bases for a finding of
809:
of study. The footnote makes this clear: "This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy,
451:
and in the higher education pages of a small number of top newspapers, I believe proving this is not really required in this situation, since the full mathematical community is much bigger than the various subcommunities that we normally use for establishing academic notability.
617:
In an area in which nearly all textbooks are copies of each other, this one is the first (and so far maybe the only one?) to bring to the first-year undergraduate level an approach to mathematical analysis that had been making waves in the mathematical community. It is famous.
566:, per Hans Adler and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Notability is a tool for detecting and removing marketing spam. It wasn't originally meant to be used indiscriminately to cut out topics of genuine academic interest, and to use it in this way is to pervert its intent.—
804:
it fails #1 as it needs coverage in "at least some ... works serving a general audience", precisely to exclude works that have only limited narrow coverage: nowhere does it indicate this only applies to fiction or popular literature. It fails #4 as is not the
939:
I think we should keep this article. One might argue that the idea of teaching elementary calculus with non-standard methods has not caught on, but removing articles about the attempts seems like missing the point. Will we next be deleting the article on
152:
738:
That's interesting, I was not aware of that. Do you have some details on
Wittgenstein on Keisler? Incidentally, prods and deletion attempts don't bother me; they tend to focus attention on important pages. Perhaps they will nominate
910:
heart, by generations. A famous book is usually one with cultural or historic significance, widely known if not widely read among a large number of the general public. By any normal definition of the word this book is not famous.--
515:: Between the various editions of the book and its companion volume for the instructor, one gets over 400 cites at google scholar. Note that the book is available online, so there is no problem using it in teaching.
86:
81:
90:
713:
given a recent escalation of irritation with Dr. William M. Connolley. These PRODs are interfering with the natural development of these articles, and sapping the time and energy of the WP mathematicians.
146:
73:
357:" (my emphasis). If instead the academic criteria is used it is neither published by an academic press nor likely to be widely taught/required reading as it's out of print. The reference to
310:. The "coverage outside of mathematics" approach has no basis in Knowledge policy or guidelines. It is not a generally accepted practice to find new and exciting reasons to delete articles.
973:- It is an obvious book to keep in the area of non-standard analysis, I can't see why it was nominated for deletion in the first place. Also I'm a sucker for pretty pictures :)
77:
761:
It is unclear why you're invoking me by name here (albeit incorrectly: I've corrected you). It wasn't my PROD. Perhaps you might want to reconsider your won role in this?
328:
113:
69:
61:
410:
would be eviscerated, applying only to a few oddball subjects for which no specific guidance is provided. The general consensus of the community is that meeting
948:
is a well-known mathematician in his own right, with 51 doctoral students. His textbook on Model Theory gets 2,900 citations on Google
Scholar. It is fun that
167:
134:
956:. Including this kind of material in Knowledge may help our readers understand this conceptually-interesting but not-very-popular corner of mathematics.
476:
Thanks for your thorough research. I did not know the book is being re-published. Do you think it would be appropriate to mention this in the article?
982:
965:
921:
904:
878:
840:
821:
795:
770:
756:
729:
702:
672:
655:
627:
605:
583:
558:
541:
524:
501:
485:
459:
423:
393:
375:
343:
319:
290:
260:
233:
216:
198:
55:
128:
447:
whether to switch to this new approach to teaching mathematics to undergraduates. While it is very likely that the discussion was covered by the
953:
892:
253:
thing almost sounds as if it could alone be enough to make this book notable. There aren't many maths books that have studies made about them.
187:: the closest is the first as it has a few reviews but all in specialist publications, no general coverage. No other indication of notability.
124:
444:
The book is in extremely good company there, as many of the absolutely top mathematics books have been republished by Dover in recent years.
917:
817:
371:
229:
194:
364:, which from the article now seems did not go down well. I'm not sure that a few letters in the same journal makes it a 'cause celebre'.--
353:: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,
174:
441:
although currently out of print. The second Dover edition is expected to come out in
February 2012 and can be pre-ordered from Amazon.
358:
278:
891:
Thanks for your comment. The issue here is not so much crackpotiness as being uninformed. A related discussion is taking place at
448:
579:
554:
492:
The point about its being out of print neglects the fact that for some years it's been downloadable free of charge on the web.
17:
140:
766:
740:
442:
848:
361:
is interesting. The article's a bit of a mess now but it started out as a summary of one of the reviews of this book:
724:
550:
997:
762:
36:
996:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
651:
419:
315:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
874:
623:
601:
497:
389:
744:
694:
936:
716:
961:
635:. Bishop's review of this book itself has multiple nontrivial published works that cite it: see e.g.
575:
537:
456:
453:
257:
254:
912:
812:
668:
647:
636:
415:
366:
311:
224:
189:
160:
870:
639:
619:
597:
493:
438:
385:
865:@John Blackburne: When you write "If it were famous" you seem like a crackpot. To suggest that
945:
683:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
941:
900:
836:
791:
752:
520:
481:
286:
212:
52:
957:
567:
533:
339:
978:
664:
596:
for the purpose of eliminating marketing spam. (But definitely this item is notable.)
949:
411:
407:
403:
307:
274:
783:
350:
303:
246:
184:
107:
896:
832:
787:
748:
516:
477:
282:
208:
49:
437:, that is now available online, and which, by the way, is being republished by
349:"coverage outside of mathematics" was my paraphrasing of the first criteria of
335:
974:
302:, sufficient attention by journals within the field, which are considered
222:
mentioning it is not enough; it needs coverage outside of mathematics.--
893:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Ghosts_of_departed_quantities
643:
990:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
269:
It's not just
Sullivan's study. The book became something of a
402:
If the subject matter of an article meets the requirements of
355:
with at least some of these works serving a general audience
362:
103:
99:
95:
159:
895:, perhaps you could contribute if you get a chance.
384:Please. "The criteria are" or "The criterion is".
954:Criticism of non-standard_analysis#Bishop's review
935:- If Knowledge is going to have any coverage for
433:published by a publisher specialised on academic
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1000:). No further edits should be made to this page.
281:. The idea of deleting this is ill-informed.
183:Not notable. Satisfies none of the criteria of
329:list of Education-related deletion discussions
70:Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach
62:Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach
173:
8:
327:Note: This debate has been included in the
869:book is not famous is to appear ignorant.
326:
663:I believe it ticks the notability boxes.
782:- I don't quite see how the book fails
44:The result was Non-admin closure as
414:⇒ notability unless proven otherwise.
7:
245:. This is an academic book, so per
952:denounced Keisler's approach; see
359:Criticism of non-standard analysis
306:, to meet the requirements of the
279:criticism of non-standard analysis
24:
449:Times Higher Education Supplement
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
741:ghosts of departed quantities
944:? The author of this text,
308:general notability guideline
1017:
532:seems important enough. --
827:already). So I stay with
993:Please do not modify it.
983:10:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
966:22:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
922:17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
905:03:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
879:02:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
841:21:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
822:20:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
796:20:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
771:21:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
757:20:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
730:19:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
703:17:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
673:12:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
656:02:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
628:23:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
606:16:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
584:23:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
559:23:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
542:07:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
525:03:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
502:00:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
486:09:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
460:08:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
424:02:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
394:00:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
376:02:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
344:02:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
320:01:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
291:01:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
261:01:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
234:01:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
217:00:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
199:00:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
56:02:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
745:standard part function
937:non-standard analysis
849:WP:Notability (books)
551:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
277:'s attack on it, see
273:in the 70s following
763:William M. Connolley
680:– Where do I start?
247:WP:NB#Academic books
592:I don't think it's
439:Dover Publications
946:H. Jerome Keisler
915:
815:
728:
582:
369:
346:
332:
227:
192:
1008:
995:
942:Abraham Robinson
911:
811:
727:
721:
714:
701:
700:
697:
690:
574:
572:
365:
333:
223:
188:
178:
177:
163:
111:
93:
34:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
998:deletion review
991:
920:
820:
717:
715:
695:
692:
684:
681:
568:
374:
342:
232:
197:
120:
84:
68:
65:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1014:
1012:
1003:
1002:
986:
985:
968:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
916:
913:JohnBlackburne
907:
884:
883:
882:
881:
863:
862:
861:
857:
855:Academic books
851:we find this:
845:
844:
843:
816:
813:JohnBlackburne
799:
798:
776:
775:
774:
773:
759:
733:
732:
706:
705:
675:
658:
648:David Eppstein
630:
611:
610:
609:
608:
587:
586:
561:
544:
527:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
490:
489:
488:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
445:
426:
416:Chester Markel
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
370:
367:JohnBlackburne
338:
323:
322:
312:Chester Markel
296:
295:
294:
293:
264:
263:
251:
239:
238:
237:
236:
228:
225:JohnBlackburne
193:
190:JohnBlackburne
181:
180:
117:
64:
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1013:
1001:
999:
994:
988:
987:
984:
980:
976:
972:
969:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
950:Errett Bishop
947:
943:
938:
934:
931:
930:
923:
919:
914:
908:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
880:
876:
872:
871:Michael Hardy
868:
864:
858:
856:
853:
852:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
825:
824:
823:
819:
814:
808:
803:
802:
801:
800:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
778:
777:
772:
768:
764:
760:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
737:
736:
735:
734:
731:
726:
722:
720:
711:
708:
707:
704:
698:
691:
689:
688:
679:
676:
674:
670:
666:
662:
659:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
634:
631:
629:
625:
621:
620:Michael Hardy
616:
613:
612:
607:
603:
599:
598:Michael Hardy
595:
591:
590:
589:
588:
585:
581:
577:
573:
571:
565:
562:
560:
556:
552:
548:
545:
543:
539:
535:
531:
528:
526:
522:
518:
514:
511:
510:
503:
499:
495:
494:Michael Hardy
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
461:
458:
455:
450:
443:
440:
436:
432:
427:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
395:
391:
387:
386:Michael Hardy
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
373:
368:
363:
360:
356:
352:
348:
347:
345:
341:
337:
330:
325:
324:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
298:
297:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
275:Errett Bishop
272:
271:cause celebre
268:
267:
266:
265:
262:
259:
256:
248:
244:
241:
240:
235:
231:
226:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
206:
203:
202:
201:
200:
196:
191:
186:
176:
172:
169:
166:
162:
158:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
126:
123:
122:Find sources:
118:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
992:
989:
970:
932:
866:
854:
828:
806:
779:
718:
709:
687:Fly by Night
686:
685:
677:
660:
632:
614:
593:
569:
563:
546:
529:
512:
434:
430:
354:
299:
270:
242:
204:
182:
170:
164:
156:
149:
143:
137:
131:
121:
45:
43:
31:
28:
147:free images
958:EdJohnston
570:S Marshall
725:Wolfowitz
665:Gandalf61
644:1007.3018
435:teaching
114:View log
48:. v/r -
807:subject
513:Comment
243:Comment
153:WP refs
141:scholar
87:protect
82:history
897:Tkuvho
833:Kmhkmh
788:Kmhkmh
749:Tkuvho
747:next.
719:Kiefer
517:Tkuvho
478:Tkuvho
412:WP:GNG
408:WP:GNG
404:WP:GNG
283:Tkuvho
209:Tkuvho
125:Google
91:delete
918:deeds
818:deeds
784:WP:NB
640:arXiv
615:Keep.
534:Salix
457:Adler
372:deeds
351:WP:BK
336:Logan
304:WP:RS
258:Adler
230:deeds
195:deeds
185:WP:NB
168:JSTOR
129:books
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
979:talk
975:Dmcq
971:Keep
962:talk
933:Keep
901:talk
875:talk
867:this
837:talk
829:keep
792:talk
780:Keep
767:talk
753:talk
743:and
710:Keep
696:talk
678:Keep
669:talk
661:Keep
652:talk
633:Keep
624:talk
602:talk
594:only
564:Keep
555:talk
547:Keep
538:talk
530:Keep
521:talk
498:talk
482:talk
454:Hans
420:talk
390:talk
340:Talk
316:talk
300:Keep
287:talk
255:Hans
213:talk
205:Keep
161:FENS
135:news
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
46:Keep
847:At
540:):
431:was
175:TWL
112:– (
981:)
964:)
903:)
877:)
839:)
831:--
794:)
769:)
755:)
682:—
671:)
654:)
638:,
626:)
604:)
557:)
523:)
500:)
484:)
422:)
392:)
334:—
331:.
318:)
289:)
215:)
155:)
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
977:(
960:(
899:(
873:(
835:(
790:(
765:(
751:(
723:.
699:)
693:(
667:(
650:(
642::
622:(
600:(
580:C
578:/
576:T
553:(
536:(
519:(
496:(
480:(
418:(
388:(
314:(
285:(
211:(
179:)
171:·
165:·
157:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
132:·
127:(
119:(
116:)
110:)
72:(
53:P
50:T
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.