Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Perl Programming

Advanced Perl Programming

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

Seems to be an average programming book. No indication of what makes it notable. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Wikipedia is not a catalog WP:NOTCATALOG. Msnicki (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cited in 7 other books. The (non)-existence of some independent book reviews from reliable sources could still sway my vote either way. As the nominator has not bothered to look for those I'll go with keep for now. —Ruud 10:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If we kept every computer science publication that had 7 citations we'd have a ridiculous amount of barely notable material here. You have just voted to delete some with 16 citations at Natural Constraint Language. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because a scientific paper citing a scientific paper is more common than a popular/regular book citing another book. They should be weighed differently. —Ruud 13:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in WP:NBOOK do I see any provision that makes mere citations relevant to establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 13:52, 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]

What part of "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself ..." [emphasis added] seems unclear? (This book certainly doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria.) Msnicki (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The part where it says "if" instead of "if and only if". —Ruud 15:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking to see how other publishers are treated in Wikipedia. For example Springer has Graduate Texts in Mathematics, a single article for the whole series. The individual blue links are to math articles not to book articles. I'm certain that every book in that list has some reviews in mathematics journals. They do no qualify for individual articles according to WP:NBOOK though, which requires at least one such review in a venue of general interests, which mathematics textbooks are unlikely to have, as are programming books. Perhaps creating an article for O'Reilly Media#Animal books would be more reasonable. The series can be presumed to be more notable than the individual books. (Oddly enough someone created an article only for their less notable Head First (book series)) Right now O'Reilly Media#Animal books lists only a handful of books, the selection is haphazard, and the individual articles do not even show how they pass WP:GNG, let alone the more demanding NBOOK. I doubt the other/missing books in the series differ significantly in (real-world) notability. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]