Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons and Warfare

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. With the provision of additional sources, consensus that there is indeed enough to show NBOOK is met Nosebagbear (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons and Warfare

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I found one review, [1], little else to suggest a pass of NBOOK, though some passing coverage ([2]) exists. It does seem to be a useful book and is cited a few times in a few places, but I haven't seen indication that it's widely cited enough or covered enough to establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my rationale per Cunard's research. This should be considered equivalent to a withdrawal/or keep vote, however I cannot formally close it as keep because there is an outstanding delete vote. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough sourcing to show that this is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.
1. McCoy, William F. (Summer 1980). "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare". JSTOR 25826437. Retrieved 2021-01-25 – via JSTOR
  .
  The book notes:
  
  Although the literature on war is voluminous and diverse in subject matter—with many studies devoted to causes, campaign strategies, and economic effects—very little has been published on what can be termed the "engines of war." This information gap has been bridged significantly with the publication of the twenty-four-volume Ilustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare. It will be of value to multiple audiences, including historians, military history buffs, and general readers.
  The scope of the volumes is enormous. Virtually every weapon used during the twentieth century is presented. Many prototype weapons and other pieces of equipment that were never used in combat, as well as some unrealized projects that influenced subsequent develops in weaponry, are included. The arrangement is alphabetical, with the exception of a special section at the close of each volume that is devoted to artillery. Individual artillery weapons of particular note (e.g., the BAT series of British antitank guns) have detailed entries in the main body of the text. The volumes are profusely illustrated with photographs, cross-sectional diagrams, and color illustrations.
There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow The Illustrated Encyclopedia Of 20th Century Weapons And Warfare to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The book has received three reviews: Reference and User Services Quarterly, Booklist, and School Library Journal, so it passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm reluctant to assume that the SLJ and Booklist reviews are significant reviews without the text . SLJ reviews 6,000 items a year and allots 200-250 words to a standard review (meaning: It's brief for a book review). Per our own article, Booklist reviews around 7,500 books a year, meaning that these two are only slightly more selective than Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly. While these probably technically barely meet the letter of NBOOK, if there are no other reviews it's hard for me to see this equating notability. You also misquote NBOOK. It says "A book is presumed notable". You have to consider where the reviews are coming from, how in depth the reviews are, and how indicative of notability they are (for the last two points, the answer for booklist and SLJ is "not very"). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria's revised wording as it was changed on 29 December 2020, and I was using an old copy of the text.
The Booklist review is an in-depth review. I found copies of the review through doing searches through the Google Books snippet view here and here.
The review said that Weapons and Warfare was first published in 1967 "as a consecutively published partwork issued in the United Kingdom by Phoebus". It notes that the general editor is Bernard Fitzimmons, "who has edited works on military history for Phoebus". It said that the book has three consultants: Anthony Preston (naval consultant), Bill Gunston (aviation consultant), and Ian V. Hogg (land weapons consultant), who are "established authorities and prolific writers on military affairs". It said that John Batchelor illustrated the book.
The review notes:

The 24 volumes include 3,000 articles, and a Classified Index is the final volume. The articles cover various types of ships, aircraft, armored fighting vehicles, small arms, and missiles as well as survey articles on artillery. Each entry begins with a definition, e.g., Italian bomber or British destroyer escort class, and concludes with technical specifications concerning size, armament, speed, crew, etc. A typical entry includes several short paragraphs on noteworthy history and particular characteristics of the weapon concerned. Entries range in length from one paragraph to five pages; they are well written, succinct, and accurate. The wide variety of well-chosen illustrations, many of which are in color and which appear on almost every page, include contemporary photographs, paintings, and diagrams. There is no bibliography, and articles are unsigned.
[additional information]
The review later notes:
Weapons and Warfare is legibly printed in triple columns on coated paper and is side sewn. It is bound in plasticized paper-covered boards; the spine has been flattened with board stiffeners, which may cause early spine failure.
The information in this encyclopedia is reliable, the coverage is broad, the illustrations are attractive, and the indexing/reference structure is fairly adequate. Nevertheless, Weapons and Warfare is of somewhat dubious value as a as a reference tool: it is difficult to identify its potential audience. Scholars will find it too superficial; students will need to use it in conjunction with the more synoptic survey articles in general encyclopedias or textbooks; model builders may be better served by the standardized illustrations of various guide series; and general readers will require more interpretive information. The committee Recommends it for large and comprehensive collections but suggests that selectors for other collections carefully assess user needs before acquiring.
Booklist 77:717 Ja 15 '81 1350w
This review contains substantial background and analysis and criticism of Weapons and Warfare. I consider the reviews in Reference and User Services Quarterly and Booklist to be in-depth enough to meet the Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria criterion that "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself."
I consider 200–250 words about a book to meet the "significant coverage" requirement in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
As long as the reviews provide significant coverage of the subject and are from reputable publications, they should be sufficient to help establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. That the publications review thousands of books a year should not affect their ability to help establish notability. An RfC would be needed to exclude reliable and in-depth reviews from publications like Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly, School Library Journal, and Booklist from establishing notability because they review thousands of books.
Cunard (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find Cunard! I can't withdraw because someone has already !voted delete, but I now feel this should be closed as keep and will strike my nomination rationale accordingly. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of Purnell's partworks – an old school way of building an encyclopedia. Kudos to Cunard for validating the topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:34, 1 February 2021 (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.