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

Revision as of 13:24, 24 June 2011

Revision as of 13:25, 24 June 2011

Line 31:

* '''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)

::fIf 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)