Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mastering Perl

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 redirect to Brian d foy. czar 00:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mastering Perl[edit]

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

No sources, no indication of notability Polyamorph (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is out of process because it fails to apply WP:ATD. Firstly, this book is part of a trilogy of books. It is not possible to consider the notability of one of these books in isolation because any 'trilogy' or 'series' of books can be collectively notable and can be regarded as a single multi-volume work. Secondly, the book's author has an article. Even if this book is not notable, the worst that can happen is that it will be merged and redirected to its author. This does not require an AfD and should not have resulted in one. If the nominator actually wants this deleted, he ought to have nominated the other two books and the author at the same time. We cannot consider the notability of a sub topic in isolation from its parent topic. All or nothing. I am not the only one who thinks this: [1]. If the other articles are not bundled into this nomination (and I have not looked into their notability) then, if this book is found not to be notable, the only possible outcome of this AfD is some kind of merger. I am advised by another editor that "books by this publisher are usually notable". James500 (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion or redirect, would be fine by me. There's no indication of notability for this to have a dedicated article. I am not the only one who thinks this: [2] Polyamorph (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the author's page. The article does not say much more than what is already there in any case. I would also support a merged article of the series of all three books if anyone wants to take that on. That would probably work better than separate articles in any case (but someone has to be willing to do it). A footnote to in the second book article would also work for me. SpinningSpark 20:00, 27 March 2018 (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.