Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning the vi and Vim Editors

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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Learning the vi and Vim Editors

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

Non-notable computer book. Links offered aren't deep coverage and simply explain the OReilly practice of using drawings of animals on their covers. Authors aren't notable enough to meet "anything written" criteria of WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NBOOK states that it doesn't cover manuals. This one is in its 7th edition, which makes i a classic in the world of instructional manuals. No shortage of reviews and references out there. Vrac (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:NBOOK also says that, until some other guideline is made, WP:NBOOK can be applied. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know what you think of the notability of the other O'Reilly technical manuals: Category: O'Reilly Media books. Is there something in particular that makes this one less notable or do you feel that they are all suspect? Vrac (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Review in Dr. Dobb's Journal. Holdings in 181 libraries. Mentioned for additional reading in classes at UConn, Eastern Michigan, UCSB, and Harvard. This isn't ever going to be a featured article, but I think the book has picked up enough notoriety over seven editions to clear the hurdle of notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that earlier editions of the book were titled Learning the vi editor. Peter H. Salus reviewed the book for ;login: in 1989. I'm trying to track down the text of that review. Here's the BibTeX cite:

@Article{Salus:1989:BRL,
  author =       "Peter H. Salus",
  title =        "Book Review: {Learning the vi Editor}",
  journal =      j-LOGIN,
  volume =       "14",
  number =       "3",
  pages =        "14--??",
  month =        may # "\slash " # jun,
  year =         "1989",
  CODEN =        "LOGNEM",
  ISSN =         "1044-6397",
  bibdate =      "Tue Feb 20 15:42:13 MST 1996",
  bibsource =    "ftp://ftp.uu.net/library/bibliography;
                 http://www.math.utah.edu/pub/tex/bib/usenix1980.bib",
  acknowledgement = ack-nhfb,
  affiliation =  "Open Software Foundation",
}

Earlier editions of the book were recommended at UMBC, UMICH, and Northwestern.
Two more short reviews (not sure how much these should count, but for sake of completenes): Danny Yee reviewed the book in 1994, and All Things Linux reviewed the book in 1999. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vrac and Lesser Cartographies. If we were to apply NBOOK by analogy, the relevant section would probably be TBK, not the more restrictive main criteria which are primarily intended for contemporary fiction. TBK simply directs us to use "common sense" which allows us to look at, in addition to the main criteria, factors such as the number of editions, which is normally an indicator of popularity. James500 (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2014 (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.