352:. This guideline notes that "possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions." This book series has been published by reputable academic publishers including the
720:. In my areas (inorganic and bioinorganic chemistry), this book series is decidedly not prominent. It never was prominent, but then again many once prominent book series are suffering in the digital age. User:Petergans cites from it a fair bit within Knowledge (XXG), I recall. I dont see any harm in keeping the parent article describing the book series, so long as the series is not overly promoted within Knowledge (XXG). --
286:. This a really disgraceful article. It's terribly organized, written and structured. Much of it just seems to be a restatement of the actual work it tries to describe. The lists are very irritating. Finding an article like this on Knowledge (XXG) is the equivalent of finding an old box of muffins in the garage that fell behind something when you were bringing in the groceries... in the 1980's. I agree with
310:. I think it is notable enough, per reviews cited in the article. I agree with HappyValleyEditor that it was overly long and unencyclopedic, with all those tables of contents, but after posting their comment above HappyValleyEditor has cleaned up the article (maybe not to what it should be, but at least in a right direction).
290:
that this is essentially an advertisement for the book (series). Since
Knowledge (XXG) does not allow advertisements, my vote is delete. An additional argument might be that this article needs to be blown up and redone to even be able to see if there is anything remotely notable underneath all those
648:
to the best of my knowledge, a not particularly notable book series published in part of a sequence of three scientific publishers. As a librarian, yes, I subscribed to the series, but only because we bought essentially everything published of even minor significance in the field of biochemistry,
497:
I saw this and thought it was not an encyclopedia article, and asked
Randykitty what their judgement was, as Randykitty is very experienced in these sorts of articles. Their judgement was the same and they tagged it for speedy. That was the right answer in my view. I am sympathetic to Petergans
702:
There is no speedy deletion tag on the article. One of your edits was to add a link to a T&F shopping cart (I guess that link only works for you yourself and that only transiently) and remove a "third party sources needed in this section" tag, despite the fact that all sources in that section
443:
When those rules were formulated, all big publishers already had well-established websites. And those rules are still very much relevant nowadays. It's definitely unencyclopedic to just have an "article" that consists of a bunch of external links and basically copies
Springer's website for these
401:
be the basis for expansion into an acceptable article. The recent edit history does not give me much confidence that such will actually happen, though. (I realize that the foregoing is not a reason to keep/delete, it's just a description of events). As for notability, I note that there are some
201:
for speedy deletion as spam. Restored on request from the author. It has been around for nearly seven years and no other editors have shown much interest in it. Certainly far too long - we do not need a schedule of every article. And, in my view, lacking independent evidence of notability. —
426:. This can be useful to researchers when the relevant volume is not held by their institution's library. I accept that this is not permissible under current WP rules; I imagine that these rules were drawn up before publishers like Springer offered free previews of book contents on the web.
324:
I optimistically posted the above comment hoping that the article will be built up from the HappyValleyEditor's version. Instead of an anticipated collaboration (in developing the article) I see an editing disagreement. Given the marginal notability, I see no future for this article.
360:, is in preparation for its 17th volume, and has certainly been cited in plenty of articles on WP and presumably also in the literature. As such, I would see it as notable but in need of a complete re-write along the style of a standard journal article (such as
222:
On the specific issue of evidence for notability. Each volume has been the subject of a number of reviews. I have not cited all of them because it seemed unneccesary. The fact that 16 volumes in the series have already been published is evidence of notability in
543:
421:
The use of terms "disgraceful", "appalling" and "atrocious" is not what I expect of
Wikipedians. A word of explanation is appropriate. What I attempted to do was provide users with links to view specific article contents, which the publisher provides
649:
whether of not it was of any great importance. The reviews are utterly routine, amounting just to announcements. Very few papers of any importance were every published in it. The place for this sort of information is in library catalogs.
166:
444:
books. Researchers interested in these books will look at
Springer's website for links to the chapters, not WP. Like SwisterTwister, I'm curious to see what DGG (a retired academic librarian) thinks of all this. --
547:
554:) And the sources (refs 1-4) for the encyclopedic content are all to the publishers, not independent or secondary sources, so no so good, even still... but yes better than it was!
160:
595:
So a link that actually works and brings you to a place where the books are actually listed is less appropriate than a dead link in your view. OK then. 17:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
381:(changed to "delete" below) The way the article was when I first encountered it was indeed atrocious. I started an attempt at cleanup but was immediately reverted by the
119:
598:
The link to CRC Press refers to the prvevious series ""Metal Ions in
Biological Systems", not to "Metal Ions in Life Sciences" , which is the title of this article.
92:
87:
96:
126:
79:
542:
Thanks for asking! I should have looked and thought again, so really thanks. It is better now. But. The biggest chunk of content was sourced to
181:
148:
17:
703:("Historical development") are to publisher websites. There is still no conclusive evidence that this series of books is notable. --
213:
142:
783:
755:
729:
712:
696:
677:
660:
638:
607:
589:
562:
529:
511:
487:
453:
435:
415:
373:
334:
319:
300:
274:
250:
232:
217:
61:
738:
618:
138:
802:
40:
525:
330:
315:
296:
83:
577:
353:
188:
684:
75:
67:
778:
482:
687:) has now been revised in line with the comments above. I request that the speedy deletion tag be removed.
521:
394:
326:
311:
292:
238:
154:
798:
36:
708:
673:
449:
411:
270:
766:
725:
692:
603:
585:
470:
431:
344:
First, the article as it stands is appalling. However, the question is whether the book series is
246:
228:
174:
348:. If it were a journal, I would look for an impact factor, but I think the relevant guideline is
207:
57:
261:
I have restored HappyValleyEditor's version. The version
Petergans is referring to can be seen
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
797:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
559:
507:
369:
499:
390:
382:
349:
704:
669:
445:
407:
287:
266:
198:
721:
688:
631:
599:
581:
427:
386:
242:
224:
345:
656:
241:
so that editors can can see the full text and therefore make fully informed comments.
203:
53:
572:
The reference to CRC press is inappropriate. The publisher since 2012 is
Springer
550:. So that biggest chunk of encyclopedic content is unsourced. (updated all that
113:
573:
555:
503:
365:
748:
651:
466:
403:
357:
402:
reviews for some individual volumes. I also note that (according to
765:
as I am also convinced by DGG, this is still overall questionable.
791:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
741:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
621:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
546:; the series is apparently now at CRC press - current ref is
393:
applied and tagged it as spam. After the excellent job that
406:) none of the books seems to be held by many libraries. --
551:
517:
361:
262:
109:
105:
101:
173:
237:
I have undone the massive and excessive deletions by
747:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
627:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
187:
520:; the article is very different now, have a look.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
805:). No further edits should be made to this page.
498:for having groomed this for so long but it is
574:http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319217550
8:
465:for now as I'm uncertain and I'm asking
397:did, we have an acceptable stub that
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
685:Metal Ions in Life Sciences
389:. At that point, I decided
76:Metal Ions in Life Sciences
68:Metal Ions in Life Sciences
822:
578:Royal Society of Chemistry
320:11:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
301:03:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
291:moldy, mummified muffins.
233:22:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
218:22:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
502:an encyclopedia article.
794:Please do not modify it.
784:04:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
756:04:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
62:23:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
730:03:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
713:13:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
697:13:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
678:05:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
661:03:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
639:01:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
608:10:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
590:16:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
576:Before that it was the
563:08:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
530:08:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
512:08:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
488:05:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
469:for familiar analysis.
454:08:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
436:08:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
416:09:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
374:08:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
335:23:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
275:09:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
251:08:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
239:User:HappyValleyEditor
516:Randykitty tagged
758:
641:
522:Materialscientist
395:HappyValleyEditor
327:Materialscientist
312:Materialscientist
293:HappyValleyEditor
813:
796:
781:
776:
753:
746:
744:
742:
637:
636:
634:
626:
624:
622:
485:
480:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
821:
820:
816:
815:
814:
812:
811:
810:
809:
803:deletion review
792:
779:
767:
759:
749:
737:
735:
642:
632:
630:
628:
617:
615:
483:
471:
383:article creator
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
819:
817:
808:
807:
787:
786:
745:
734:
733:
732:
715:
683:This article (
681:
680:
663:
625:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
544:this dead link
535:
534:
533:
532:
491:
490:
459:
458:
457:
456:
424:free of charge
419:
418:
376:
339:
338:
337:
303:
280:
279:
278:
277:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
818:
806:
804:
800:
795:
789:
788:
785:
782:
777:
774:
770:
764:
761:
760:
757:
754:
752:
743:
740:
731:
727:
723:
719:
716:
714:
710:
706:
701:
700:
699:
698:
694:
690:
686:
679:
675:
671:
668:, per DGG. --
667:
664:
662:
658:
654:
653:
647:
644:
643:
640:
635:
623:
620:
609:
605:
601:
597:
596:
594:
593:
592:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
564:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:
513:
509:
505:
501:
496:
493:
492:
489:
486:
481:
478:
474:
468:
464:
461:
460:
455:
451:
447:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
433:
429:
425:
417:
413:
409:
405:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
377:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
340:
336:
332:
328:
323:
322:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
304:
302:
298:
294:
289:
285:
282:
281:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
248:
244:
240:
235:
234:
230:
226:
220:
219:
215:
212:
209:
205:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
793:
790:
772:
768:
762:
750:
736:
717:
682:
665:
650:
645:
616:
571:
518:this version
494:
476:
472:
462:
423:
420:
398:
378:
362:this version
341:
306:
305:
283:
258:
236:
221:
210:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
161:free images
705:Randykitty
670:Randykitty
446:Randykitty
408:Randykitty
288:Randykitty
267:Randykitty
199:Randykitty
197:Tagged by
799:talk page
722:Smokefoot
718:weak keep
689:Petergans
633:Music1201
600:Petergans
582:Petergans
428:Petergans
387:Petergans
243:Petergans
225:Petergans
37:talk page
801:or in a
739:Relisted
619:Relisted
404:WorldCat
358:Springer
214:contribs
204:RHaworth
120:View log
54:MelanieN
39:or in a
646:Delete.
463:Comment
379:Neutral
346:notable
259:Comment
223:itself.
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
775:wister
771:wister
763:Delete
666:Delete
556:Jytdog
504:Jytdog
500:WP:NOT
495:delete
479:wister
475:wister
391:WP:TNT
366:EdChem
350:WP:TBK
284:Delete
139:Google
97:delete
50:delete
751:Nakon
657:talk
399:could
342:Keep:
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
780:talk
726:talk
709:talk
693:talk
674:talk
604:talk
586:talk
560:talk
552:here
548:here
526:talk
508:talk
484:talk
450:talk
432:talk
412:talk
370:talk
364:).
356:and
331:talk
316:talk
307:Keep
297:talk
271:talk
265:. --
263:here
247:talk
229:talk
208:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
652:DGG
467:DGG
354:RSC
189:TWL
118:– (
52:.
728:)
711:)
695:)
676:)
659:)
629:—
606:)
588:)
580:.
528:)
510:)
452:)
434:)
414:)
385:,
372:)
333:)
318:)
299:)
273:)
249:)
231:)
216:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
773:T
769:S
724:(
707:(
691:(
672:(
655:(
602:(
584:(
558:(
524:(
506:(
477:T
473:S
448:(
430:(
410:(
368:(
329:(
314:(
295:(
269:(
245:(
227:(
211:·
206:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.