Wiki143:Articles for deletion/List of ...For Dummies books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wiki143:Articles for deletion
Revision as of 01:16, 20 December 2022 by imported>Sheep8144402 (→[[List of ...For Dummies books]]: fix font tags using AWB)
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

List of ...For Dummies books

This list is better maintained by IDG Press. John Wiley & Sons, the current publisher. FreplySpang (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom- So long as to be infeasible, and not of much value in any case.--Sean Black (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-10 04:05Z
  • Keep Well known books. --Masssiveego 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - this is not a proposal to delete ...For Dummies, the summary article about this series of books. FreplySpang (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Eivind 05:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, notable. -- Andy Saunders 05:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A list is notable? News to me. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Do we need to have Wikipedia for Dummies before it will be notable enough for you? -- Andy Saunders 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a publisher's list: let them maintain it. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful and well known Ozone 06:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A list is well known? News to me. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Шизомби 06:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom & Sean Black. Lambiam 07:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The main article can link to the publisher's list; WP lists are useful when the information isn't more reliably collected elsewhere on the open web. Deborah-jl Talk 08:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - No real reason to remove, save a dislike for lists. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The For Dummies series is pretty famous, and I can see that this list can be useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A list is pretty famous? News to me. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That isn't what the comment directly above says MLA 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have list pages for many things that also have summary articles. Why not this, unarguably notable, book series? Darcyj 12:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A list is unarguably notable? News to me. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't see any good reason for being listcruft. --Terence Ong 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The notability of ...For Dummies doesn't directly translate to notability for a list of their products. This list is over-long and contains no encyclopedic content—unless you consider it encyclopedic to merely know that a book exists and has a title. If these books were notable in their own right, I might consider keeping it, but I can't really see the notability of Quicken 2000 for Windows For Dummies, etc. - Rynne 16:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Isotope23 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep useful list MLA 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Useful in wat way exactly? This is a partial list of unknown currency and unproven accuracy, a mirror of a list fomr the publisher's website, it contains no links and no additional information. Linking to the identical list on the publisher's website gives links to synopses. We do not have articles on more than a handful of these books, so that won't happen here. It's functionally indistinguishable form the Yellow Pages, which WP:ISNOT. Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this is not an indescriminate collection of information. It's an index to some popular books. Someone should linkify every entry. --Snargle 21:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like encyclopedic info to me, so we should have it even if it is a duplicate of the publisher's list. --Allen 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. We're not Amazon.com. --kingboyk 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There has to be some lower limit of notability. · rodii · 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete of course! Wikipedia is not a mirror of the publisher's catalogue, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, WP:NPOVUW - few if any other publishers or series have an entire cataloigue mirrored on Wikipedia, nor should they. There are new titles coming out all the time, and no more than a tiny fraction of those listed have articles. Anybody who wants the list of Dummies books can get it trivially easily from dummies.com or Wiley's website, authoritative and up-to-date sources, with no more effort and with considerably more useful results since they will be able to click through and read a synopsis. Honestly, there is no encyclopaedic content here at all! Just zis Guy you know? 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG. Arbusto 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename List of Dummies' and Idiot's books or something similar and add titles by competing publishers, e.g. The Complete Idiot's Guide to.... The series is noteworthy and the lists are encyclopedic. They provide valuable references for people who want information. Fg2 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, we could have the "complete idiot's guide to Wikipedia" - it could start with "copy and paste the content of your favourite web page into an article on Wikipedia!" Oh, wait , that must already exist, judging by the existence this article ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I see no reason for signalling which O'Reilly insert variable here books do not have articles. Dlyons493 Talk 01:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • O'Reilly is down the hall, it's For Dummies in here. · rodii · 02:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd just come from there and it was late! Dlyons493 Talk 07:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is just an inferior copy of the entire dummies.com website. It's hopelessly unmaintainable, and honestly, not really that useful. Dummies is a huge organization and I think they can keep tabs on their books better than we ever could. I think a simple link to the book catalog from the main Dummies article would be good enough. Cyde Weys 04:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Cyde. Melchoir 05:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would it be helpful if this became a list of topics covered by ...For Dummies books, as opposed to a list of the books? Andy Saunders 06:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting idea, but I don't think so. Such a list would really be an inferior version of Wikipedia:Browse, while still being unmaintainable and an advertisement. Melchoir 06:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advercruftlistspam. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Useless list that links to nothing. --Hetar 06:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Equivalent of List of books that have XYZ in their name. No encyclopedical value. Pavel Vozenilek 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not at all equivalent to "List of books that have XYZ in their name". This is a well-known series. StarryEyes 14:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as lists should contain significant and substantive information that would not otherwise be held in a category. It is a slightly more useful list than "List of books that have XYZ in their name" but not by much and not nearly enough to be Wikipedia material. Deizio 15:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm down with the notion that "...For Dummies books" is an important and notable publishing concept worthy of an article, and it has one, but a list like this is inherently unmaintainable. Delete per Freply, Sean, JzG, Kingboyk, Schizombie, Calton... and the usual cast of deletionist scum.... who happen to be right in this case! ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Muah ha ha. FreplySpang (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It was pointed out to me that "Deletionist scum" may be a bit too much of an inside joke... it's used in good fun, not pejoratively, and is about people I respect and like very much, but probably nevertheless isn't appropriate here since it gives the appearance of incivility and even, of an inner circle. Redacted. No change in my comment though. ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a mirror of John Wiley & Sons website. A category is more than sufficient for this. Stifle 00:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or trim and merge, as it is now because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If this could be made a more encyclopedic list or a category, that would be much better. --Christopherlin 01:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP Or else delete every single article on wikipedia and close the site down. EVERYTHING we have on wikipedia is SOMEWHERE on the internet (or else why would we bother about how many google hits something has), so to say this is just a copy of xyz is ridiculous. This is a list of well known and verifiable books which are in and of themselves useful. Jcuk 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
ROFLMAO! I have a list of all the sizes of spanners, I'll create that article right away - every spanner is, after all, useful! Just zis Guy you know? 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
We'll need two spanner lists, actually, one for English and one for metric, plus redirects from the "list of wrenches" articles. Please get on this. · rodii · 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Spammers come in more than one size? What sizes do they span? ouch! Stop kicking me. Oh, you said spanners! Never mind. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Two lists? You jest! Metric, imperial a/f (SAE?), British Standard Whitworth, British Standard Pipe, British Standard Fine, BA, then there's six-point, twelve-point, open ended, ring, combi, surface drive. And that's just the cantilever toolbox, I have four more toolboxes... :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Fake Keep. Excellent! All well known and verifiable tools which are in and of themselves useful! · rodii · 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep - [[1]] Nothing is lost by keeping it, and it's kind of an interesting overview of the many different subjects covered by the series. I skimmed through it after reading the ...for Dummies article. We should put a note near the top saying that it's not an exhaustive or necessarily up-to-date list, then we don't have to worry about maintaining it as much. 134.173.95.35 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts talk 05:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG and most others. Sandstein 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per JzG and others. Wikipedia is not an inventory list for a publisher. (I wouldn't object to a category however). JoshuaZ 05:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless list. No Guru 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is yet another pointless list. --BWD (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG and all others, obviously listcruft. --Terence Ong 06:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Just zis Guy you know?, but as a second choice/compromise, redirect to ...For Dummies, where readers will find a link to the publisher's web site and thus be able to find the equivalent of this article. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reason to keep this list; the ...For Dummies article and the company's own website do a much better job, and we'll never have articles (I hope!) for all of these. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio (the categorization and order of books is identical to that of the publisher and as listcruft (as eloquently described by JzG. --Karnesky 07:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agathoclea 08:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm convinced by Users: Rynne and JzG and I'm keen to strike a minor blow against listcruft. Politepunk 09:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a smaller list showing the more notable ones at ...For Dummies might be useful, but this is just a catalogue -- Astrokey44|talk 09:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the list is already maintained by the publishers. It's not a copyright violation, but it's not encyclopaedic; WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. Proto||type 12:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Why don't you think it is copyvio? If organized lists are copyrightable (there is some debate that they are), this is DEFINITELY (and verifiably) copy vio. --Karnesky 00:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as slightly not indiscriminate, strong categorize if deleted. youngamerican (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per listcruft/copyvio arguments stated by so many users above. IMHO does not add encyclopedic value to Wikipedia. Zunaid 13:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a list of notable books. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Delete If there's an official list by the publisher or from verifiable sources and is kept up-to-date, then delete and make a link in the For Dummies main article.--Janarius 14:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP is not replacement for company website. Pavel Vozenilek 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep Keep only if Wikified. This series of books is notable, and just as commercial as the List of Ford vehicles --PZ 18:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Category: ...For Dummies books would be a more user-friendly way to find individual books' articles than a list of over 1300 redlinks. - Rynne 22:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep we have more inane lists that this; it's certainly verifiable and could be useful for some dummies, I suppose. Carlossuarez46 20:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the books are notable and the list is useful. Carioca 20:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's pretty useful to know what "for dummy" books have been published, especially as the series is a bit of a cultural phenomenon. On a side note, I don't see why this was extended. No consensus= no consensus. It does not equal: keep voting for eternity until a pseudo consensus emerges. -- JJay 20:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Yup, it sure is useful. There's a complete list on the publishers' website, which is up to date - and if you click the titles you get a synopsis. Our mirror is distinctly inferior in these respects. No doubt that's why they wrote WP:NOT a directory. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
As usual JzG makes some good points. However, I don't think we should delete articles because someone else out on the internet has produced a better version. If that's the case many, many articles here would have to go. The advantage is that we can be an impartial source that has no pecuniary interest in the material covered. Getting back to the Dummy series, I know that people really admire and love these books, kind of like Harry Potter. As such, I see little difference between this list and any of our many book lists that people can begin to peruse at List of lists of books. -- JJay 01:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
But it isn't just "someone out on the Internet" with a better version - more like, the publisher's list is a source, and our list is completely derivative of their list. I understand that we can be impartial in the article that describes the series, and that the publisher can't. But how can we be any more impartial than the publisher in producing a bare list of titles? FreplySpang (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It should be pretty obvious how we can be more impartial since we can draw from any source we want to compile the list. Also why do you think this list is condemned to remain "a bare list"? Why does Harry Potter have a list of Harry potter books? Couldn't the publisher do that better? Or for that matter, why don't we just leave it for a fan site? We can not allow our POVs to say one series of books merits a list and another one doesn't. -- JJay 11:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
A few points:
  • Are you arguing that the publisher's listing of its own products is biased? I'd say that it's verifiable.
  • Harry Potter is a completely different case, because each individual book is notable—each has topped best-seller lists, garnered critical praise in mass-media outlets, etc. The list of Harry Potter books (note: which is not on List of Harry Potter books), links to articles on notable subjects. With very rare exceptions, the only claim to notability most ...For Dummies books have is being a ...For Dummies book.
  • Following, this is condemned to remain a bare list, for all intents, because the vast majority of its subjects of the list aren't notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. It will be more useful to put any articles which may be created in a Category:...For Dummies books, rather than bury wikilinks between hundreds of list entries.
I am unconvinced that this article will ever contain useful content in addition to the basic list of titles. And if it's just a list of titles, it serves Wikipedia better to link to the publishers site instead of maintaining them ourselves. - Rynne 14:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not arguing anything. I have been responding to questions that were addressed to me. If I wanted to argue, which I most assuredly do not, I would be leaving comments for other people, as you have done. Furthermore, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about what books should be listed here based on any criteria you wish to apply. I have expressed my opinion on the matter and I strive not to let my POV influence my thinking. For the record, I have never read Harry Potter or a dummy book. As far as I know, they are both highly profitable, longstanding book series. They both probably sell a lot of copies and are widely read. In short, for me they are the same and as far as I am concerned we should have articles on every one of those dummy books, just like we do for Harry Potter or any other book series that people choose to add to the site. Going further, I would see no problem with having articles on every book ever published in every language since Gutenberg. That to me would be truly encyclopedic, and I apologize for using that truly meaningless word.-- JJay 17:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with JJay. The list is useful but long enough that it would clutter the main article, and the series is highly notable. ProhibitOnions 22:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
A couple of people have said this is "useful". I am really struggling to visualise this. Coiuld you give me an example of how it is useful please? Who would use it and for what purpose? Just zis Guy you know? 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone who was interested in the series of books? For the purpose of gaining information?....Isnt that what an encyclopædia is for? Jcuk 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
But why is that any more useful than the snazzy categorized list that the publisher provides? FreplySpang (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG Funky Monkey 22:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the books are notable and the list is useful. Imacomp 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep noteable books... dont' know if a list is necessarily necessary pm_shef 01:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- as tertiary sources Dummies books are not individually notable (except for the occasional screwup, like a dangerous misformula in Soapmaking for Dummies, or a major early title such as DOS for Dummies). I don't think Martin Yan considers Chinese Cooking for Dummies his magnum opus. Haikupoet 04:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As much as I dislike the concept of these books (and am disturbed/disgusted by the percent of the populace willing to self-identify as "dummies"), you'd have a really hard time convincing me that this huge series of bestselling books isn't notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No one is claiming that ...For Dummies isn't notable as a series. But a list of every title in that series isn't notable, barring any notability received by a user thinking,"Wow, there sure are a lot of ...For Dummies books." - Rynne 14:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful reference. Bhoeble 16:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT and well reasoned arguments above. For those that say we should keep because we have even worse lists, one bad article does not justify another. We have an article on the series of books, and this isn't it. Friday (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per above. Tom Harrison Talk 23:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let the publisher maintain it on their website. --Carnildo 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per above. ...For Dummies has a link to the publisher's website which "includes categorized lists of all titles", no good reason to try to maintain our own destined-to-become-quickly-out-of-date list. --Stormie 23:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JJay and others. Existence of information elsewhere on the Web is not a good reason to remove it from Wikipedia. The "...For Dummies" books are a very widely-known, widely-parodied series that I could certainly imagine people wondering if there is a "xxx for Dummies" or even just wanting to see what titles already exist. Certainly no more harmful than some of the Star Wars trivia we have here. Turnstep 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, I strongly object to another "relisting for better consensus" in other words "relist and hope we can get enough delete votes this time." No consensus = keep. Relisting is for when there are a small number of votes cast, no for when no specific supermajority is reached. Turnstep 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I've changed my vote from delete. Some of the keep arguments on here are persuasive. And they make a good point: just because something is already somewhere else on the web doesn't mean it shouldn't also be on Wikipedia. Otherwise Wikipedia would have no content at all, because original research is explicitly frowned upon. --Cyde Weys 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has to be a joke, right? Let people go to the publisher for this. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 23:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - If this list was created by copying the list on the publisher's website, then isn't this a copyright violation? If not, then how do we furnish verifiable proof that this list is accurate? (After all, there might have been a title Starting a Life of Crime for Dummies, which was quickly suppressed -- but copies sell on eBay for tens of thousands of dollars.) -- llywrch 23:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You're swallowing the propaganda put out by the media conglomerates. Lots of things they're trying to make you think are copyright violations really aren't. How could a list of books possibly be a copyright violation?! That would pretty much make all library catalog systems illegal. It's in the publisher's best interests for lists of their books to be available, fer godssakes. Also, prior court findings on matters like these have been that facts themselves cannot be copyrighted. A mere list of what some corporation has published, which is a fact, can't be a copyright violation. --Cyde Weys 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • This is not legal advice. But: Some think that specially ordered and categorized information is copyrightable. If this is the case, this IS a copyvio. Library catalog systems aren't copyvio, as they don't follow the same ordering/categorization as other lists. Also, they don't include/exclude the same things. IF such organized lists are copyrightable, this is definitely copyvio. There IS caselaw for copyrighting fairly mundane things. It is really grey. --Karnesky 00:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gamaliel 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete don't understand the purpose of the list. Why would anyone need a list of this type of series? WP:NOT FloNight talkFile:Small shamrock.png 00:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the list is useless as is. If it included ISDN numbers, I might change my vote to "Weak Keep." -- MisterHand 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and link to the up-to-date offsite list, where appropriate. — Mar. 17, '06 [01:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Delete - we are not an indiscriminate gathering of information. The books don't even have articles yet, signaling that this list isn't needed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm generally pretty apathetic when it comes to deletions, but there is really little point to having a list such as this in an encyclopedia. older ≠ wiser 03:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- notable series of books . Interestingstuffadder 04:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have heard people on a number of occasions wonder out loud, "Is there a 'For Dummies' book about that?" That's sufficient to tell me that this list is something that has a place in an encyclopedia. --Michael Snow 04:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify: each entry should at least be linked to an appropriate article and have an ISBN. The list should also be re-sorted to avoid simply duplicating the lists from the publisher. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Forgive me, but I really blanch at the idea of creating articles to justify the existance of a list; particularly creating 1300+ articles which will end up looking like the Java 2 for Dummies page. - Rynne 13:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - hmmm, maybe Phil was suggesting something less blanchworthy - linking to the related main topic. I.e., Java 2 for Dummies. FreplySpang (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, yes, I would blanch significantly less at that. - Rynne 15:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the Library of Congress Card Catalog. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The fact that an article of this size contains no wikilinks (blue or red) would alone strongly urge its deletion. If any substantial number of these books ever get their own articles, they would make an appropriate category, but a list is just... dumb. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, unfortunately. Unfortunately, because it is duplication of a list maintained by the publisher, and it is a long and ugly list, and it really should have at least ISBNs, and links to what articles already exist per Phil Boswell (don't create new ones, per Rynne, but there are a couple of them that are notable in their own right). But after thinking about it a couple of days --- is it a notable series? Yes, it certainly is, mentioned in hundreds if not thousands of sources. Do we keep lists of notable series? Yes, we certainly do. And what if the publisher decides, one day, to take the ones that have gone out of publication off their list? Or what if the publisher decides to sell the series to someone who won't maintain the list? Or if the publisher goes out of business? Will the series stop being notable? No. So, again, unfortunately, we should keep this list. GRuban 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hear hear. · rodii · 15:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


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 "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_...For_Dummies_books&oldid=2599253"