Revision as of 00:29, 29 June 2011 edit Chaos5023 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 13,687 edits try making some argument that is actually about notability ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:34, 29 June 2011 edit undo Rogerd (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 42,705 edits Thanks Next edit →
Line 29: '''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]]. 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. --[[User:Rogerd\|rogerd]] ([[User talk:Rogerd\|talk]]) 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Perl Programming: Difference between revisions