Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Perl Programming: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 11:
* '''Keep''' Cited in [http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Perl-Programming-Sriram-Srinivasan/dp/book-citations/1565922204/ref=sid_dp_av?ie=UTF8&citeType=cited#cited 7 other books]. The (non)-existence of some independent book reviews from reliable sources could still sway my vote either way. As the nominator has not bothered to look for those I'll go with keep for now. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 10:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
** If we kept every computer science publication that had 7 citations we'd have a ridiculous amount of barely notable material here. You have just voted to delete some with 16 citations at [[Natural Constraint Language]]. [[User:FuFoFuEd|FuFoFuEd]] ([[User talk:FuFoFuEd|talk]]) 11:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
* I've been looking to see how other publishers are treated in Wikipedia. For example Springer has [[Graduate Texts in Mathematics]], a single article for the whole series. The individual blue links are to math articles not to book articles. I'm certain that every book in that list has some reviews in mathematics journals. They do no qualify for individual articles according to [[WP:NBOOK]] though, which requires at least one such review in a venue of general interests, which mathematics textbooks are unlikely to have, as are programming books. Perhaps creating an article for [[O'Reilly Media#Animal books]] would be more reasonable. The series can be presumed to be more notable than the individual books. Right now it lists only a handful of books, and the selection is haphazard, and the individual articles do not even show how they pass [[WP:GNG]], let alone the more demanding NBOOK. I doubt the other/missing books in the series differ significantly in (real-world) notability. [[User:FuFoFuEd|FuFoFuEd]] ([[User talk:FuFoFuEd|talk]]) 12:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
| |||