Deletion of Metal Ions in Life Sciences

Comment: I saw this and thought it was not an encyclopedia article, and asked Randykitty what their judgement was, as Randykitty is very experienced in these sorts of articles.  Their judgement was the same and they tagged it for speedy.  That was the right answer in my view.  I am sympathetic to Petergans for having groomed this for so long but it is  an encyclopedia article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: First, the article as it stands is appalling.  However, the question is whether the book series is |notable.  If it were a journal, I would look for an impact factor, but I think the relevant guideline is .  This guideline notes that "possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions."  This book series has been published by reputable academic publishers including the Royal Society of Chemistry|RSC and Springer, is in preparation for its 17th volume, and has certainly been cited in plenty of articles on WP and presumably also in the literature.  As such, I would see it as notable but in need of a complete re-write along the style of a standard journal article (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metal_Ions_in_Life_Sciences&oldid=717871911 this version
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:TBK)

Comment: changed to "delete" below) The way the article was when I first encountered it was indeed atrocious. I started an attempt at cleanup but was immediately reverted by the |article creator, {{u|Petergans}}. At that point, I decided  applied and tagged it as spam. After the excellent job that {{u|HappyValleyEditor}} did, we have an acceptable stub that ''could'' be the basis for expansion into an acceptable article. The recent edit history does not give me much confidence that such will actually happen, though. (I realize that the foregoing is not a reason to keep/delete, it's just a description of events). As for notability, I note that there are some reviews for some individual volumes. I also note that (according to WorldCat) none of the books seems to be held by many libraries
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN||WP:TNT)