Deletion of Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry

Comment: I've searched the following commercial databases for "Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry" and found 0 hits: Gale Academic OneFile, Gale General OneFile, InfoTrac, JSTOR, ProQuest, Booklist, NewsBank, Ebsco MasterFile Complete, Ebsco Newspaper Source Plus. These represents 10s of thousands of newspapers, journals and magazines over the last 50+ years, many of them specialized. The Google Scholar citations and library holdings are interesting but not notable according to  or . Need multiple book reviews in reliable sources (how many "multiple" depending on the quality of the sources). Notability on Wikipedia operates much like the Google search algorithm, it's based on ''what other people say about'' a topic. The more other people have written about something, the more notable it becomes, in the same way the more a web page is linked to by other websites, the higher in the search results it's listed. Bibliography citations are interesting in this regard, but not enough alone. Two more reviews I'd probably vote keep
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK||WP:GNG)

Comment: Let's see if I understand the conversation so far: the person supporting this article, apparently the author, cannot find any references which support otability|notability (or |the book version) as defined by Wikipedia. Offering as proof "all scientists know it is really used" is precisely what is not allowed in Wikipedia. Perhaps it's a great book, but it fails notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BK)

Comment: Doesn't seem to be notable; cited only 13 times. Fails . -- Special:Contributions/101.119.15.94|101.119.15.94
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)