Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning Perl

Learning Perl

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. Msnicki (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cited in 47 other books. —Ruud 10:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in WP:NBOOK do I see any provision that allows mere citations to be considered as evidence of notability. Msnicki (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in WP:NBOOK do I see any provision that makes mere citations not relevant to establishing notability. —Ruud 14:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But silly policy wonking aside, if 47 authors thought it was a good idea to refer their readers to this particular book, then that's probably a good indication the book is indeed quite notable. —Ruud 14:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBOOK states criteria for establishing notability. If mere citations are not on the list, it means they don't qualify. But if you can convince other editors to add language to WP:NBOOK that supports that reasoning, I'm on-board. I don't think that's going to happen. Msnicki (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why such a thing would be necessary? —Ruud 14:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]