301:. A common name is no reason for deletion but being a common book might be. Other than being in the 9th edition, I see nothing indicating that this book is particularly notable at the moment. If someone can extend the article and providing convincing sources that the book is standard work in its field as well, it can be kept but in its current shape it sould be deleted.--
343:: WP:NBOOKS seems to be geared toward fiction and a math textbook is a very different animal. For standard subjects publishers churn out new editions for the lucrative college market and they are financially motivated to keep updating to reduce used book sales. These books are reviewed in publications such as the
347:
publish reviews because that's partly why such publications exist, and they are used a references because authors kept their copy when they originally took the course, but in reality such books cover the same material in more or less the same way and are generally interchangeable in terms of content.
251:
Being a common name for such textbooks is not a reason for deletion but a reason for moving the article to a better title. I am neutral for now as my experience with numerical anaysis was 40 years ago. We need the experts to take a look. A text that has gone through 8 editions may well be notable.
279:
but the description there only copies from the preface rather than being an independent review). The review I found was about a quite old edition that appears to be significantly different from the present one. I added it to the article, but I don't think there's a lot to draw on in the way of
284:. On the other hand there are maybe 150 or so papers in Google scholar that cite this book and maybe if someone combs through them carefully it would be possible to find a few of them that say something nontrivial about it rather than merely using it to source some standard algorithm. —
326:, I see that most books there are more notable than the average textbook. Is there any evidence that the same is true of this book? David Eppstein's comment above suggests that it's not impossible, but I'd like to see something more specific.
151:
348:
I happen to own a copy of the third edition by my college years (it has a pretty pastel cover) and have used it as a reference in WP articles, but I wouldn't consider it a subject of encyclopedic value.--
182:
This article began as a list of errata for an undergraduate textbook and other inappropriate information. After four years it has been whittled down to two sentences. Not adequately notable.
145:
112:
228:
85:
80:
89:
72:
209:
280:
third-party reliable sources about the subject that would provide content for our article, and I don't think the existing sources are enough for
166:
133:
211:
127:
17:
389:
375:
357:
335:
310:
293:
267:
243:
219:
199:
123:
54:
173:
76:
323:
408:
36:
407:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
289:
68:
60:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
385:
371:
139:
215:
52:
285:
192:
159:
381:
367:
366:
exists? That is extremely remote from the truth, to say the least. Look at a few issues of it.
331:
239:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
353:
306:
319:
260:
49:
183:
327:
281:
235:
106:
349:
302:
276:
253:
322:; note that item 4 there specifically excludes textbooks. Looking at
275:. I was only able to dig up one real review (it is also listed in
401:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
380:
OK, you said "partly", but still potentially misleading.
102:
98:
94:
318:. Probably not notable by the standards described at
158:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
411:). No further edits should be made to this page.
172:
8:
229:list of Science-related deletion discussions
227:Note: This debate has been included in the
226:
208:this is a common name for such textbooks.
7:
24:
362:Huh? Book reviews are why the
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
345:American Mathematical Monthly
428:
324:Category:Mathematics books
390:01:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
376:01:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
358:09:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
336:05:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
311:05:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
294:04:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
268:01:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
244:01:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
220:07:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
200:05:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
69:Numerical Analysis (book)
61:Numerical Analysis (book)
55:17:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
404:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
44:The result was
246:
232:
419:
406:
265:
258:
233:
195:
188:
177:
176:
162:
110:
92:
34:
427:
426:
422:
421:
420:
418:
417:
416:
415:
409:deletion review
402:
261:
254:
193:
184:
119:
83:
67:
64:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
425:
423:
414:
413:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
338:
313:
296:
286:David Eppstein
270:
248:
247:
223:
222:
180:
179:
116:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
424:
412:
410:
405:
399:
398:
391:
387:
383:
382:Michael Hardy
379:
378:
377:
373:
369:
368:Michael Hardy
365:
361:
360:
359:
355:
351:
346:
342:
339:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
314:
312:
308:
304:
300:
297:
295:
291:
287:
283:
278:
274:
271:
269:
266:
264:
259:
257:
250:
249:
245:
241:
237:
230:
225:
224:
221:
217:
213:
210:
207:
204:
203:
202:
201:
198:
196:
189:
187:
175:
171:
168:
165:
161:
157:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
129:
125:
122:
121:Find sources:
117:
114:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
65:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
403:
400:
363:
344:
340:
315:
298:
272:
263:(Discussion)
262:
255:
205:
190:
185:
181:
169:
163:
155:
148:
142:
136:
130:
120:
45:
43:
31:
28:
316:Weak delete
299:weak delete
273:Weak delete
212:65.94.47.63
146:free images
277:MathSciNet
50:joe decker
236:• Gene93k
328:Jowa fan
320:WP:NBOOK
113:View log
364:Monthly
186:Dolphin
152:WP refs
140:scholar
86:protect
81:history
350:RDBury
341:Delete
303:Kmhkmh
282:WP:GNG
206:Delete
124:Google
90:delete
46:delete
256:Bduke
167:JSTOR
128:books
107:views
99:watch
95:links
16:<
386:talk
372:talk
354:talk
332:talk
307:talk
290:talk
240:talk
216:talk
160:FENS
134:news
103:logs
77:talk
73:edit
174:TWL
111:– (
388:)
374:)
356:)
334:)
309:)
292:)
252:--
242:)
234:—
231:.
218:)
154:)
105:|
101:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
79:|
75:|
48:.
384:(
370:(
352:(
330:(
305:(
288:(
238:(
214:(
197:)
194:t
191:(
178:)
170:·
164:·
156:·
149:·
143:·
137:·
131:·
126:(
118:(
115:)
109:)
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.