Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tao of Programming

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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Tao of Programming

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

This appears to be a self-promotional page by the author of the book. The book itself is not noteworthy and is a poor seller; therefore it is not noteworthy per Wikipedia's standards.

Are you accusing Logomancer (talk · contribs) or Project2501a (talk · contribs) of being socks of Geoffrey James? --Gwern (contribs) 16:08 21 November 2009 (GMT)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge As I have stated at AfD for James, this should redirect to his WP page. Author has marginal notability, but the book does not warrant it's own article. Angryapathy (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the Google News & Google Books hits for it? --Gwern (contribs) 17:18 23 November 2009 (GMT)

Most of the Gnews hits are for something different from the Manilla News. I'm not saying we delete the content, I am just saying we merge it with the author, since the article on this book is longer than the author. Angryapathy (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Manilla News, what? I'm referring to things like the New York Times or Miami Herald hits. (Seriously, how notable does an old computer humor book have to be to get coverage in MSM papers like them?)

And so what if the author article is shorter? You'll notice the articles on the Odyssey and the Iliad are longer than on Homer, and William Shakespeare doesn't much more (or even as much, perhaps) space as Hamlet. --Gwern (contribs) 00:35 24 November 2009 (GMT)

Are we actually comparing James to Shakespeare and Homer? Two of the seminal writers in the history of literature to a guy who wrote a computer humor book? That's like comparing apples to...rocks. Angryapathy (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incredulity is not an argument. Since you don't seem to understand basic logic and argumentation and have focused on something entirely else, let me spell it out for you.

'1. All articles on books longer than the articles on the author should be merged into the article on the author; 2. The Tao is longer than James; QED, 3. The Tao should be merged into James.' Counter-argument: '1. Hamlet should not be merged into Shakespeare; Odyssey should not be merged into Homer; Iliad should not be merged into Homer. 2. Either Hamlet or Iliad or Odyssey is longer than the respective author's article. 3. All articles on books longer than the article on the author should be merged into the article on the author. One of the three should be merged (by 2 & 3), but it should not be merged (by 1).' This is a contradiction.

Now, we can either reject the fact that one of the book articles is longer than the author's - and reveal ourselves to be mendacious madmen. Or we can reject that Hamlet or Iliad or Odyssey should be standalone articles - and reveal ourselves madmen. Or we can reject the stupid argument that all long-enough book articles should be merged into author articles, and say some book articles should be merged, in which case you have shown no reason at all why The Tao ought to be one of those 'some'. --Gwern (contribs) 16:55 24 November 2009 (GMT)

What I found silly was comparing seminal works from seminal authors to a very minor work from a very minor author. Shakespeare and Hamlet have volumes upon volumes written about them; James and his book have a few pages. So to compare the two, and equate merging this book to James's article with Shakespeare/Hamlet is a very poor comparison.

As for the case at hand, I see that this book has been discussed in reliable sources. However, the majority of those sources are from the year in which the book was published, over 20 years ago. I found one mention from 1997, which is over 10 years ago. Since this book does not seem to have any lasting effect (according to the sources), the information would be best served merging/redirecting to the author.

As for the article itself, NONE of the information is cited. If the uncited info is removed, all we would have is the information in the infobox and the mini-book titles (all of which can be gleaned from the book itself). I do not see many sources to add or attribute this information; as far as I can tell, the sources only have quotes from the book, and do not actually discuss the book itself.

From all of this, I believe WP and the topics in question would be best served by merging with the author. Angryapathy (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny; I must've missed the point in your comments where you made clear that your argument was actually 'all books with articles longer than their authors should be merged into the authors; unless Angryapathy considers them seminal books by seminal authors, in which case it's silly to even suggest such a merge.' I apologize for parodying your argument; clearly my disproof doesn't work then...

Notability does not disappear. It does not matter whether the 3rd party sources (which you admit exist now?) are from today, a year ago, a decade ago, or 10 millenniums. Once notable, always notable.

And being uncited is never a reason for deletion! AfD is solely about notability; nothing less, nothing more. Being cited or uncited is only an issue of article quality. Given that, I suggest we close this AfD as otiose, and move on to regular merge discussions if need be. --Gwern (contribs) 21:27 24 November 2009 (GMT)

I stated, "I am just saying we merge it with the author, since the article on this book is longer than the author." I never stated that "all articles about authors should be longer than their books." You, in fact, are the only one who has stated that. Please do not insert words into my mouth. You should assume good faith and base your comments on what is actually said.

That being said, I still believe that this book would be better served redirecting and merging with the author. Reading WP:BK, it is stated that a book is notable if, "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." The NYT source did not have this book as it subject; it merely took a anecdote from the book. I am assuming the Beacon Journal article discusses the book at length; however, this is one source, and that is not multiple. Angryapathy (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so your argument was simply not an argument at all, since 'the article on the book is longer than the author' is no rule of logic or desiderata I have ever heard of before. Forgive for applying the principle of charity to put words in your mouth that were merely wrong, as opposed to being outright non sequiturs.

As for independent works: are we disregarding the Miami Herald review? The Computer World article by James? The brief NYT review? The 40 other citations & mentions of it in books and periodicals? --Gwern (contribs) 02:43 26 November 2009 (GMT)

Redirect/Merge The book is known enough in computer science and computer engineering circles, and despite its age, is still relevant today. One single article for the author and his books might be most appropriate. 194.250.151.28 (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the book is even better known than the author in computer science circles. Don't delete it!! And such an old work is not in need of promotion, I wouldn't consider the article as author's self promotion. --asegura (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not a programmer and I've heard of this book. Shadowjams (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Miami Herald, Computerworld, The New York Times, etc. all have full articles dedicated to this book. Ikip (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, and a minnow (if not a trout) for the nominator. A cursory examination of the edit history for both this and the author's bio page provides no evidence to suggest that the page is self-promotional. The sales volume for the book is unclear from either the article or the nomination. This leaves us with the unsupported argument that the book is "not noteworthy". I would argue that the author's bio page could be redirected here, since the book would appear to be better known than he is.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the references. Not just notable, but famous. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. No doubt.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (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.