Revision as of 12:36, 24 June 2011 edit Msnicki (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 10,360 edits →Learning Perl: r ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:16, 24 June 2011 edit undo Chaos5023 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 13,687 edits +k Next edit →
Line 25: ::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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning Perl: Difference between revisions