Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thinking in Java

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

It is trivial in a sense that I can write this kind of so-called review on any book without actually reading it; I think this alone is bad enough to disqualify this one as a credible review (not to mention that it probably doesn't qualify as WP:RS because of rather clear ad-like bias too). Ipsign (talk) 14:13, 17 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]
  - That'll work. A pack of editors who care about saving articles at all cost, and who know how to handle prose, but nothing about Java. Just look at the trite ref that has recently been added. "This book is the best thing evahh! Squueee!!" is one thing, but it still doesn't say why the book is important. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That isn't the quote I put in the article. You are being rather rude and immature. I found one of the notable places that reviewed the book, and quoted the review for the reception section, as is proper. Details about the book itself of course belong there also, but someone who is more familiar with this sort of thing will have to do it. AFD is not cleanup. AFD exist to determine if an article's subject is notable, there references providing that this one is. Dream Focus 20:25, 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]
Delete: a single review in a minor computer trade mag does not add up to notability. Nor does number of citations, unless and until it can be demonstrated that some of the works citing this book actually discuss it in detail (there's a good chance that most of them are just boilerplate). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three reviews were found. I only bothered to add one into the article. The one in tech republic and the other one count also. And whether or not you consider the magazine minor isn't relevant. Its a reliable source, so it counts. Dream Focus 12:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One from an explicitly "reader-supported news site" (i.e. a WP:SPS, of no value to notability). Tech Republic "is an online trade publication", so slightly better. But two reviews in minor trade mags is only slightly better than one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every book has reviews. A review is a source, but it's far from establishing notability. BTW, "reader-supported" doesn't necessarily mean that it's like a wiki, it could refer to financial support (like viewer-supported PBS D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every book does not get reviews. And this meets WP:GNG by having at least two reviews about the subject in reliable sources. I added those two to the article. Dream Focus 12:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, this book fails WP:NBOOK criteria: (i) none of the reviews are in "works serving a general audience"; (ii) the book has not "won a major literary award"; (iii) no RS has stated that thr book "made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement"; (iv) no indication whatsoever that "the book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country" (my emphasis -- though I dare say it may be a tool of instruction somewhere); (v) the book's author is not "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that the rescue squad has found so little of significance shows this book gets almost zero coverage outside of book reviewers (who review everything) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Important - new evidence for WP:NBOOK found. I've found that this book has won several (!) independent awards, will add info to the page in a few minutes. Based on it, I've changed my stance from previous 'Delete' to 'Strong Keep'. Hope nobody will really object to keeping it with this additional information present. Ipsign (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I claim that it qualifies at least by WP:NBOOK criteria #1 and #3 (#2 is also possible but more debatable), applied "by analogy" as it is specified in WP:NBOOK#Coverage notes. I further claim that it also qualifies under WP:GNG as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" has been clearly demonstrated. Ipsign (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As promised above, I've added Awards section. Now (with seven(!) awards) I hope it should be clear that the book indeed satisfies WP:NBOOK criteria. Ipsign (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NBOOK criteria is in fact "The book has won a major literary award." (my emphasis) -- I don't think "Java Developers Journal Editors Choice Award for Best Book", etc, meets this criteria. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I could argue that when applying this section to a technical book, it should be interpreted as relevant award, even this is not really necessary. Such an award is clearly a "non-trivial published work appearing in source that is independent of the book itself", and seven such awards should certainly qualify it under criteria #1 of WP:NBOOK. Ipsign (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) I would argue (fairly convincingly, I think) that "Java Developers Journal Editors Choice Award for Best Book" is hardly equivalent of the Man Booker Prize. (ii) The statement that 'book a won award x' is in fact "trivial" coverage of it. Non-trivial coverage requires some substantive discussion of the book, not simply giving it an award. (iii) For that matter an award isn't a "published work" at all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can counter-argue on each and every of your points (and then you'll probably counter each and every of my points), so we can continue this argument back and forth for ages. To avoid going in circles, I suggest to cut it here and see what the others will say. For me, it is convincing, for you - it is not, fine, let's see other opinions. Ipsign (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be realistic, Hrafn, a book like Thinking in Java is never gonna win any of the big literary awards. Almost all of those are for novels, and almost none of them are given to howto books. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. BTW, IMHO it is possible to argue that Jolt Award by Dr Dobb's Journal is the best possible award for the book in this field (computer programming), which makes it an important pro-notability argument. Is it convincing enough for you to change your opinion on keeping book? (now IMHO it became clear why this book is special compared to the other books on computer programming). Ipsign (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the obvious corollary of that is that an ordinary-award-winning technical book most probably won't be as inherently notable as a top-award-winning novel. For such non-stellar literature, they have to prove their notability the more pedestrian way, by the other four criteria of WP:NBOOK (or WP:GNG) -- none of which this book appears to meet. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:48, 18 November 2010 (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.