Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real World Haskell

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Mediran ^{talk to me!} 06:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real World Haskell

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

No indication of notability, unable so far to find sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This book is published by O'Reilly Media, a publisher known for its technical books, and is one of their so-called animal books some of which are listed there that have their own page. One of the authors, John Goerzen is apparently notable himself and has this book listed as one of his accomplishments.MarSch (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a note: I overturned a CSD deletion as the article as deleted was not inherently promotional under the CSD criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all the criteria for a book to be notable. Keep, per Mark viking, below. Good finds. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book passes at least one criterion for a book to be notable: the book has won a Jolt award for best technichal book in 2009; these are major awards in the software industry by Dr. Dobb's Journal, a reliable publisher independent of O'Reilly. A second criterion probably above threshold is that the book is also being used as a textbook at University of Pennsylvania and Knox College and as an alternate text at University of Wyoming, Dartmouth, and University of Edinburgh. Mark viking (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is probably the most popular Haskell book right now. Should be easy to expand with reviews etc. More notable than a lot of other O'Reilly books we have articles on. —Ruud 00:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.