Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific American Library

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Aoidh (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific American Library[edit]

Scientific American Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was a redirect until recently. The topic is adequately covered in the Books section of the main Scientific American article but an attempt to restore the redirect has been reverted so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is already sufficient. There are also articles of the same type like
--Htmlzycq (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find the block-of-text list of titles in the main Scientific American article unhelpful, but I like the links to notable authors in the new article. Would it be appropriate to replace the text in the main article with the better text from here? Or would that make the main article too large, or give this undue weight? Incidentally, the rest of the book section in the main article could do with clarification too: is the single bulleted item the output of the 2010 publishing imprint named above, or a third, separate venture? Elemimele (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this, listing topics like this is not very helpful.

    The Animal Mind; Atmosphere, Climate, and Change; Beyond the Third Dimension; Cosmic Clouds; Cycles of Life • Civilization and the Biosphere; The Discovery of Subatomic Particles; Diversity and the Tropical Rain Forest; Earthquakes and Geological Discovery; Exploring Planetary Worlds; Gravity's Fatal Attraction; Fire; Fossils and the History of Life; From Quarks to the Cosmos; A Guided Tour of the Living Cell; Human Diversity; Perception; The Solar System; Sun and Earth

    In contrast, listing books and authors is more convenient to access.
    But according to Scientific American Library | LibraryThing, at least 70 books need to be listed, which is too large for the main article. Htmlzycq (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid split from the parent article. This article is big enough to stand alone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On grounds of list size it seems a valid content split. As the article stands it doesn't come across as informative presentation-wise as nothing in the lead paragraph sets out reasons for the order in which the books are listed, but that's for a separate discussion. The nominator hasn't directly mentioned notability, but under WP:SPLIT this article is required to pass notability guidelines. My understanding is that the series would need reliable, independent sources commenting on/reviewing the whole series or at least a part of the series, not just the books individually and I'm not sure content in the links provided by Cunard sufficiently does so. Probably more out there but I've found little, so reserving judgement. Rupples (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2023 (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.