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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete per nom Eivind 05:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, notable. -- Andy Saunders 05:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A list is notable? News to me. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do we need to have Wikipedia for Dummies before it will be notable enough for you? -- Andy Saunders 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a publisher's list: let them maintain it. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and well known Ozone 06:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A list is well known? News to me. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Шизомби 06:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom & Sean Black. Lambiam 07:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep - No real reason to remove, save a dislike for lists. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean other than it's duplicative of an external link, and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, no, I guess not. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- A list is pretty famous? News to me. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That isn't what the comment directly above says MLA 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- A list is unarguably notable? News to me. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see any good reason for being listcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Comment. I've become aware of The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Koran stub, if anyone wants to use that as a specific rebuttal to me. That being said, I think that stub is pretty NN in itself, and I refer to the lack of a List of The Complete Idiot's Guide to... books. - Rynne 16:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Isotope23 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful list MLA 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- Comment. Linkifying every entry will result in 1390 redlinks and 2 blue links to one-line stubs (JavaScript for Dummies, Java 2 for Dummies. - Rynne 22:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Snargle said linkify, not wikify. -- Andy Saunders 23:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. D'oh! Apologies, my mistake. A linkified list already exists on dummies.com, where this list was cut-and-pasted from. - Rynne 23:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A linkified list would be speedily delinkified per WP:SPAM and WP:EL, I reckon. Just zis Guy you know? 00:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic. We're not Amazon.com. --kingboyk 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There has to be some lower limit of notability. · rodii · 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete per JzG. Arbusto 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

O'Reilly is down the hall, it's For Dummies in here. · rodii · 02:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd just come from there and it was late! Dlyons493 Talk 07:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete per Cyde. Melchoir 05:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Delete Advercruftlistspam. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Useless list that links to nothing. --Hetar 06:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Equivalent of List of books that have XYZ in their name. No encyclopedical value. Pavel Vozenilek 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- On which we have an article. Melchoir 23:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Muah ha ha. FreplySpang (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

Damn those rouge admins! Just zis Guy you know? 21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fake Keep. Excellent! All well known and verifiable tools which are in and of themselves useful! · rodii · 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete per JzG and most others. Sandstein 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'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)[reply]
Delete. Pointless list. No Guru 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is yet another pointless list. --BWD^(talk) 05:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG and all others, obviously listcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]