Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia - The Missing Manual

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. — Aitias // discussion 03:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia - The Missing Manual

[edit]
Wikipedia - The Missing Manual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

One of an enormous series of how-to guides all of which are functionally indistinguishable from each other, and from the comparable guides offered by rival publications. By a curious coincidence the only article I can find on any of this series is the one which is self-referential. At best this should be merged to a "help for editors" section as part of a list of all available Wikipedia how-to guides. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: Publishers weekly, Nature magazine blog, Guardian newspaper travb (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
s/sources/namechecks/, in at least some cases. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete, and certainly not speedy. We should judge this as any other book on a non-WP subject. I doubt that standard book reviews as Travb/Inclusionist mentions above are sufficient for notability. With regards to this article, it smells of self promotion (though I have no information to back that up) and am unconvinced we can say something sufficiently encyclopedic about it beyond what would be in standard publishers' blurbs and standard reviews. However, my "nose" for notability may be off and I am happy to be overruled if there is a corpus of other books on other topics that are not notable beyond being reviewed, or if there is truly something special about this book. Martinp (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep Notability. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain? travb (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show me significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Then we can presume it is notable. After a presumption is established, I'll look and see if it is actually notable. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:MuZemike said it best below. There are four routes you can take, from least likely to most likely: 1) a mea culpa acknowledging that the article subject is notable, 2) arguing that the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, and New York Times Review of Books is not a verifiable or reliable source, which is ridiculous, 3) arguing that these two sources are not enough, and even though WP:Notability only mentions "multiple sources" and doesn't define the number of sources required for inclusion, demanding more than 2 sources, or 4) A stricter interpretation WP:Notability than the WP:Notability requires, arguing that the Arkansas Democrat Gazette coverage of the book is not enough. travb (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you have convinced me. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Man that deserves a barnstar. I was not expecting this response in a million years :) travb (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Travb.--CretinInsiduous (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep — The NYT review definitely provides significant coverage of the book, while Arkansas Democrat Gazette provides some additional independent coverage, barely satisfying the multiple reliable sources tenet of the GNG. However, the other ones that Inclusionist mentions provide no in-depth review of the book. With that said, this weakly passes for notability. MuZemike (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Travb (who said it best and first). Notability is not an issue here. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Travb and MuZemike. There's plenty of independent coverage available. - Mgm|(talk) 00:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep adequate coverage. We probably should include more of the titles in this series, if it comes to that, but --not unreasonably--this one has had an unusual amount of press notice. The NYT review by itself would have been sufficient. DGG (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being part of a large series is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reviews and other coverage more than adequate. JulesH (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies the first clause of WP:BK, ..has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. The current article is very short. I hope that someone will have time to expand the article, based on what the published sources have written. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EdJohnston and travb. Cbl62 (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_-_The_Missing_Manual&oldid=1082512281"