Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Perl Programming: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''no consensus'''. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 02:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
===[[Advanced Perl Programming]]===
:{{la|Advanced Perl Programming}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Perl Programming|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 19#{{anchorencode:Advanced Perl Programming}}|View log]]</noinclude>)
Line 22 ⟶ 28:
*'''Keep'''. A minimal effort, i.e. looking through [http://oreilly.com/catalog/praise.csp?isbn=9781565922204 this page] for the sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable, demonstrates notability. I'd do the rescue legwork like I did at [[Perl Cookbook]], but I'm feeling like I should spend some time on my actual job. [[User:Chaos5023|—chaos5023]] ([[User talk:Chaos5023|talk]]) 17:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
*:Notability-establishing cites now added. If anybody thinks there's a problem with the two I did, let me know and I'll keep going. [[User:Chaos5023|—chaos5023]] ([[User talk:Chaos5023|talk]]) 18:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The sources exist as demonstrated above, the other O'Reilly Perl books articles have been improved and kept, but those of us who've rescued those articles have other things to deal with. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
** I'm reserved on those sources, which are mined by the company itself and even if assumed true, are of little value as RS. "Jeremy Beker, Williamsburg Macromedia User Group, May 24, 2003 ", "-beirne@ald.net from Cuyahoga Falls, OH , 09/27/97, rating=8, Review on www.amazon.com " (srsly?) There may be some in-depth reviews satisfying WP:GNG, but those have not been put forth here. [[User:FuFoFuEd|FuFoFuEd]] ([[User talk:FuFoFuEd|talk]]) 03:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
*** Like I said, they have to be filtered for Wikipedia reliability. But they do a fine job of illustrating just how unlikely a total sourcing failure is. IMO, the question that an AfD nominator should be asking themselves before writing the nom is "do I think somebody who's ''really trying'' to source this article is going to ''fail'' at it?" If the answer is "no", then what exactly would one be doing by writing the nom anyway? Either 1) trying to delete an article that one knows should not be deleted 2) using AfD as a cattle-prod to force labor out of other volunteers. Neither of these is acceptable. [[User:Chaos5023|—chaos5023]] ([[User talk:Chaos5023|talk]]) 17:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
*** Rescue legwork now done (I had to go all the way down to the sixth entry in O'Reilly's flack page). [[User:Chaos5023|—chaos5023]] ([[User talk:Chaos5023|talk]]) 18:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' wikipedia is not a book index, and this book isn't quite ''[[Gone with the Wind]]''--[[User:Rogerd|rogerd]] ([[User talk:Rogerd|talk]]) 22:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
*:This is [[WP:CRUFTCRUFT]], not an argument founded in policy or guidelines. [[User:Chaos5023|—chaos5023]] ([[User talk:Chaos5023|talk]]) 00:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
*::Oh really? Thanks for enlightening me. Well how about this: [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information]] and [[WP:BK#Academic and technical books|notablity of academic and technical books]]. I work in IT, and have dozens of various Wrox, O'Reilly, IDG, Que, etc., books, most of them are about as notable as this book, and they don't and shouldn't have articles written about them. These technical books have a pretty limited printing, are not widely distributed, and do not receive coverage or reviews in the media. In the past few years, even large Barnes and Noble bookstore have been reducing the number of tech books that they shelve. Just because you and I read them doesn't make them notable. --[[User:Rogerd|rogerd]] ([[User talk:Rogerd|talk]]) 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
*:::Uhm. Well, you did a great job of demolishing a couple arguments I never made, there. Could I introduce you to the [[WP:GNG|General Notability Guideline]], and the citations I've added to the article demonstrating that this topic meets it? And I don't even know what to do with "these are technical books, so they don't get coverage in the media, so they're not notable" when you have to be staring right at citations of the book's media coverage. [[WP:BK#Academic and technical books]] is trying to establish a basis for using things like academic citations for establishing notability for academic and technical books so that we don't wind up throwing out academically important works because of their lack of mainstream media coverage, not cause us ''to'' throw out books that ''have'' notability-establishing mainstream media coverage. [[User:Chaos5023|—chaos5023]] ([[User talk:Chaos5023|talk]]) 11:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
*::: The fact that "you and I read them" (in the figurative, not literal, sense) would seem like the very definition of notability to me. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 10:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
*::::When I went to Amazon.com to look up this book, I searched under books for "Perl programming". I got 764 results (just books) and sorted by "bestselling". This title was '''number 188'''. Maybe we should write articles about numbers 1 thru 187. There was another book with the exact same title with a different publisher and author listed at number 107. This is an obscure book on a very specialized topic with a rather limited audience. That was my point about "you and I read them". IT professionals, especially ones who write Perl code, is a pretty limited subset of the population. --[[User:Rogerd|rogerd]] ([[User talk:Rogerd|talk]]) 14:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
*:::::What does that have to do with anything? "Notable" doesn't mean [[WP:ILIKEIT|"I think it's important"]], it means [[WP:GNG|"has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources"]]. [[User:Chaos5023|—chaos5023]] ([[User talk:Chaos5023|talk]]) 15:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
*::::::What "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources"?? The article has references to two obscure publications (yea, I get ''Network Computing'', too, and so can anyone else who has an email address), and you listed a collection of blog posts that from the publisher's web site (but thankfully didn't include that as a reference, since it doesn't qualify). Big deal! Between the two of us, we have written about as much about this book as your "multiple independent reliable sources" have. Remember from GNG, "''self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent''". I know you think this is a cool book, but there isn't much else to justify keeping it. I am trying to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], but what is your great concern with keeping this obscure little book from being deleted? --[[User:Rogerd|rogerd]] ([[User talk:Rogerd|talk]]) 17:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
*:::::::I give up. You can review [[WP:RS]] for what a reliable source is and why your personal belief that a publication is "obscure" doesn't relate to it, and I'll note that "oh gosh I really want to AGF but I just can''not'' imagine that you would argue the way you're doing without a hidden COI" is not what success at AGF looks like. Beyond that, I'm done. If the article gets deleted because of this nonsense, it'll be trivial to get it back at DRV. [[User:Chaos5023|—chaos5023]] ([[User talk:Chaos5023|talk]]) 17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::My goodness, Chaos5023. This can't be the first AfD where someone's taken a position you don't agree with. Anyway, it appears you have the !votes to win, but that's not enough? I think you could agree to disagree, be a gracious winner and move on. There's no need for histrionics about going to DRV if you don't get your way. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 17:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
<hr style="width:55%;" />
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.'''</span><br />
:<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="color:#7d7d7d">m.o.p</span>]] 04:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->
<hr style="width:55%;" />
:'''Delete''' per [[User:Rogerd]]. A couple of positive book reviews do not confer notability. [[User:TallNapoleon|TallNapoleon]] ([[User talk:TallNapoleon|talk]]) 06:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:*Have I logged into Bizarro Wikipedia today? "A couple of positive book reviews" are ''precisely'' the sort of thing that confers notability, as [[WP:GNG|significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources]]. [[User:Chaos5023|—chaos5023]] ([[User talk:Chaos5023|talk]]) 12:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The topic satisfies the GNG, having been noticed by multiple sources — here's [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8TkEOyBHoOoC&pg=PA743 another]. The information might be more usefully presented as part of a general bibliography of books about PERL but that's not a matter for AFD. [[User:Colonel Warden|Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 12:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:: Gimme a break, that's an ad in another book by the same company, not a review. [[User:FuFoFuEd|FuFoFuEd]] ([[User talk:FuFoFuEd|talk]]) 05:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:::* Ok, here's a review in ''[http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/2523 Linux Journal]''. Q.E.D. [[User:Colonel Warden|Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 06:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
* '''delete''' per nom, '' 'an average programming book' ''. We've recently seen either the Camel or Llama books (maybe both) at AfD and either of those had a really significant impact on Perl and the Perl community. This one didn't. It's a good book, but there's just not much to say about it - which is reflected in an article here that says less than a typical Amazon review would. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 18:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||