Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thinking in Java

Thinking in Java

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

There's a lot of books about computer programming, and I don't see why this one is significant D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ~~WP:BOOK~~ WP:NBOOK and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Nothing to merge in addition to info already on author's page. Ipsign (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This book has over 900 citations, (over 1,000 if you add the Chinese? version) [1] and at least 4 editions. Reviews surely exist. A few quick finds [2] [3] [4] etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, number of citations is not a valid criteria under WP:NBOOK. As for these reviews, I'm not sure if they satisfy nontrivial requirement (especially this one is IMHO outright trivial: [5]). I like this book myself, but still doubt if it merits its own page in Wikipedia. Ipsign (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that trivial? Its a complete review. Dream Focus 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minded to keep. I'm not well-qualified to establish if the available reviews are RS, but if they are, then this is a keeper. Even if they're not technically RS, this looks like it's "more notable than the average cookbook" judging from its impact. TheGrappler (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn Hugely important book, well worthy of an article. —But this isn't an article. At least a redlink would be honest. Whilst I'm usually accused of being a rabid inclusionist, just what's the point of articles this terse? It doesn't even serve as a stub. WP:CSD#A7 for sure: it fails to indicate why its subject is significant. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rescue Several people have commented on the importance of this book. I'll tag it for rescue and see what the rescue squad can do for it. Fixing is always better than deletion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have to agree with Andy Dingley... not worth the article, completely fails WP:N and does NOT make an impact. - Pmedema (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources Tijfo098 found are quite convincing. Three links to complete reviews from reliable sources. Dream Focus 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]