Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architects' data

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Architects' data

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

Badly written article that keeps it unclear what the importance of this book is. No independent sources and a smell of promo. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be notable considering that it seemingly sold half a million copies and that there are interwikilinks in German and Polish but still notability has to be established with reliable sources. For now: Delete. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I hope someone had better to correct and fuel this article than to delete it. I've just try to change it today. Please forgive the badly written English. I'm a Frenchman working in Japan, and I wrote this article to provide sources for non-German speaker. Sorry for the odd language. Actualy there are very few independant sources about the book. By nature! An old book, often said as a "bible", most of the google searches aim at commercial link. Would the amazing number of pirates copies available on the internet convince you? I hope to find some other reliable links, beside piracy and ads... --JeromRP (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I improved the prose and stated notability. Needs better referencing, but is certainly notable. --ELEKHH^T 20:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elekhh for the improvements. I hope more native English-speakers will support the "pros" now. --JeromRP (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least in Europe, this book is the reference par excellence used by architects for authoritative numeric data needed when designing. --Lambiam 02:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WP:NBOOK, "suggested bases for a finding of notability [for an academic or technical book] 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." Cesar Pelli calls this book "invaluable" and The Architects' Journal calls the book "an invaluable reference book" (see Amazon). Numerous educational institutions list the book as required reading/reference (1, 2, 3, 4). It seems this book is influential within the field of architecture and thus it must be kept per WP:NBOOK's guidelines for academic or technical books. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 05:44, 4 March 2012 (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.