Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science Fusion

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 delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fusion

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

Delete. Article about a science textbook, with no claimed or sourced evidence of notability. As written, this just states that the book exists, sources that existence solely to its own catalogue profile on the website of its own publisher, and then proceeds to serve as a WP:COATRACK for promotionally toned BLPs of the textbook authors rather than an encyclopedia article about the book. As always, every book that exists does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because its own publisher proves that it exists; a textbook gets an article when reliable source coverage about it in media, independent of its own authors or publishers, is present to verify it as notable. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stated above. I also just removed a statement about one of the authors having a Nobel, which seems patently untrue. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find no evidence that the subject meets WP:NBOOK.Ajpolino (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely WP:COATRACK material. -- Dane ^talk 03:11, 13 December 2016 (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.