Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning Perl: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Learning Perl: that -> your |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 4 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;">
===[[Learning Perl]]===▼
:''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The result was '''Speedy keep''' — nomination withdrawn by nominator, no other opinions to delete (non-admin closure). [[User:Chaos5023|—chaos5023]] ([[User talk:Chaos5023|talk]]) 14:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
▲===[[Learning Perl]]===
:{{la|Learning Perl}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning Perl|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 19#{{anchorencode:Learning Perl}}|View log]]</noinclude>)
:({{Find sources|Learning Perl}})
<del>No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by [[WP:GNG]] or [[WP:NBOOK]]. Google search reveals blog posts and reader reviews at Amazon and elsewhere, but no formal reviews that qualify as reliable sources [[WP:RS]]. Wikipedia is not a catalog [[WP:NOTCATALOG]]. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 08:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)</del>
Retracting nomination: Two sources have since been provided which establish notability. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 13:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature|list of Literature-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>— [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 01:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>— [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 01:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)</small>
Line 15 ⟶ 23:
::::: I fail to see why such a thing would be necessary? —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 14:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
::::: Conversely, I doubt you will be unable to convince other editors to add any language indicating citations from other book are not to be used to determine notability. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 14:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The problem with NBOOK is that it's geared toward literature and fiction, not textbooks, which is what this is. It's the single best known textbook for a major programming language. Full disclosure--I own a copy and have met the author socially once. The citations mentioned above are really an appropriate measure of a textbook's worth--no one issues awards for technology textbooks, nor studies their authors, nor teaches classes on their influence on popular culture... you get the point. NBOOK criteria 2+ are essentially irrelevant to the entire field. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 05:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
::It seems unlikely that the editors who worked out that policy weren't aware of technical manuals and user guides. We're awash in them! I think the problem is that most of them genuinely aren't notable. Sure, there are exceptions, like K&R's, ''C Programming Language'', or Kernighan and Pike's ''The UNIX Programming Environment'' , that influenced the world, introducing genuinely new ideas about programming languages and operating systems. But most technical books, even good ones like this one, are turn-the-crank how-to technical writing, explaining the features one-by-one with some good examples. No question, it requires skill and some writers are better than others. But notability is all and only about what other reliable independent sources say about the subject. Notability means ''people actually took note'' not just that it seems like they should have. Certainly, notability does not come simply from having sold a lot of copies. [[WP:BIGNUMBER]] [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 21:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
:::How much do you really know about this book, this publisher, and this author? I'm suspecting not much, but I'd like to hear your perspective on your own level of clued-in-ness before I expound farther. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 01:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
::::I think we should discuss the sources and the guidelines, not each other. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 01:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::In other words, you have no personal experience with or about this book, and are just looking at it through the sterile lens of policy, rather than a view of its encyclopedic value informed by, oh, being in the IT field for a decade or two and actually having ''read and used'' the book in question? [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 11:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::No, the "other words" are that I do own a copy, but you're being uncivil, bordering on personal attack and you should stop. Now. Personal experience is irrelevant here, which is why I don't discuss mine and no one cares about yours. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 12:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::That's some mighty thin skin there, when I was simply trying to AGF about your motivations in nominating such a book for deletion. I do think you are either prone to hyperbole or you have a very... ''unique'' view of what constitutes a personal attack. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 02:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
::Note that at this point I've edited the article to add 8 separate RS references, demonstrating pretty conclusively that the book meets the [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
:::Only the [http://books.google.com/books?id=jlIEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA75&dq=%22Learning+Perl%22+schwartz&hl=en&ei=svQDTpmeF5PksQOI-4TNDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&sqi=2&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22Learning%20Perl%22%20schwartz&f=false Morrey] and [http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3372 Rooijackers] reviews actually count towards establishing notability (the rest being either minor mentions or irrelevant comment about the author) but it does only take two [[WP:RS]] and you have them. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 12:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. Pro forma notability-establishing citations now added, but IMO never should have been nominated in the first place. C'mon, Msnicki. ''Learning Perl''? Seriously? I really feel like you're going too far in the direction of trying to apply Wikipedia guidelines legalistically. They aren't statutes, weren't written to function as statutes and so produce crazy results when applied as if they were statutes. [[User:Chaos5023|—chaos5023]] ([[User talk:Chaos5023|talk]]) 13:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
::If something's notable, there should be sources to establish that under the guidelines. When I nominated this article, it did not appear there were any. Jclemens has since found some sources, of which two are indeed suitable for establishing notability, and consequently, I'm retracting my nomination. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 13:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Weak keep'''. The book is well-known and has a somewhat legendary status in the Perl community. I think that if we have articles about all kinds of programming languages, even exotic and little-used ones, we should have articles about some of the most notable books too, because they can be very influential. This, in connection with Ruud's argument (the book cited in 47 other books), makes this notable enough for our purposes. I understand the nominators concerns, and I think perhaps a community discussion should be initiated about notability of programming books. [[User:Nanobear|Nanobear]] ([[User talk:Nanobear|talk]]) 13:17, 24 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>
| |||