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 delete. The assertion that this is a "useful" list doesn't really stand up to WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Steel 14:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ...for Dummies books[edit]

This is a huge unsourced list of books that have the title "...for Dummies". This list does not meet is what WP:ISNOT. This is a copied list stolen from the publisher's website, and all it will ever be is an out date second list.

This was nominated in March and reached no consensus. Many votes included "keep and clean up," its been a half year and the list is not different.

• Delete and redirect to ...for Dummies. Arbusto 23:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What kind of source do you need for the existence of a book published by a major publisher, other than the title? Gazpacho 23:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher, the ISBN number, the year it was published would make the books more WP:V, but it would still just be a list. And lists of indiscriminate info is what WP:ISNOT. Are they written by one publisher? If so the article doesn't claim that. Arbusto 23:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary list which doesn't even link to articles about any of the books. Perhaps a category would be appropriate, if one does not already exist. --NMChico24 23:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep/rewrite/clean up this could be an article if there were editors to add reliable references, otherwise some of the things in there could be made up.--Andeh 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's now sourced, so the unsourced complaint is no longer relevant. Fg2 00:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to this link as a "source". I don't get it? I see ads to a podcast and information on backpacking. Care to make your source more specific for this list? Arbusto 00:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It contains links to the categories. See the links on the left side. It is the web site operated by the publisher for the series of books. Fg2 01:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then this wiki article is a copy and paste from that website. For example, compare Dummies: Computing all databases Titles to wikipedia dummies database titles. What point does this article serve if it is the exact same as the publisher's list, only the publisher's list is more accurately maintained. Arbusto 01:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Two of grounds for deletion are incorrect. It's certainly verifiable, given that you can check the titles against the publisher's catalog, which is certainly reliable enough. Not to mention the Library of Congress, Amazon, and whatever else is available to the book ordering trade. So we have only WP:ISNOT, particularly 1.7.3 to argue about. And that's where I can say as a list, this has some potential use, if any of the titles warrant further elucidation, even a whole article. I'd suggest making this part of the main article, but then we'd have problems with that growing unmmanageable. FrozenPurpleCube 00:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, since the Publisher's catalog might remove books once they're out of print, I'm not inclined to rely on it. Still, the ...for Dummies article could use a bit more about the categories of books. FrozenPurpleCube 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article could use more info. In other words, let it grow. Fg2 01:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete listcruft which verges on WP:SPAM. The series is notable - individual titles aren't, and a list of titles in the series is not encyclopedic Bwithh 00:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pretty much FrozenPurpleCube said it all. The article needs some work and ive volunteered to put in that work but the article kept getting deleted through a redirect. If the redirect war stops and the article is maintained it will subsequently be cleaned up. A very useful list, however, and should be kept.Bagginator 01:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Nothing has stopped anyone in the last six months since the first afd from improving it. 2) How do you plan to "improve it"? That is, what can be done to improve it? Arbusto 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or split them into individual articles. Useful list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable series of books, we have articles for really off-beat episodes of long-cancelled t.v. shows that were rarely seen outside their own country; these books are literally everywhere. Carlossuarez46 03:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I advocated before. This is a mirror of a list which is available online from an authoritative source. The list at the publishers is complete, accurate and up to date - our list is not guaranteed to be so as new books are published all the time. Previous and present keep arguments often rested on the fact that ...for Dummies books are notable; that is not questioned, but we already have an article on ...for Dummies books, this is just a list of them at an unspecified date. There are precisely zero bluelinks to individual books, making this list considerably less useful than the one on the publisher's website, which has a short synopsis for each book. This list violates WP:NOT as both a directory and an indiscriminate collection of information (why this particular publisher's catalogue?). This is simply a copy and paste of the listing on the publisher's website on an unstated date; "do not add copies of primary sources". Guy 08:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it's a duplicate of a list on the publisher's website, all it will ever be is an out-of-date version of that list. A link provides better information to readers. Sockatume 13:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT a book catalogue. The Land 10:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the previous AfD. This is one of the true publishing success stories of the last 20 years. We obviously need the list if we want to be a serious reference work, that goes beyond video games characters, obscure porn stars or irrelevant diploma mills. Nominator cites wp:not without referring to a specific clause- not really surprising since none apply. Concern over lack of sources may be valid, although nothing prevents the nom from adding sources. In fact, few of our hundreds of book lists have sources, essentially because the publication of the book proves its existence. Examples include List of cookbooks, List of political memoirs, or List of fictional books, etc. Ongoing discussion on talk page showed interest in improving the list, something this nom ignored when making this nomination. --JJay 14:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing a list of political memoirs and fictional books? Those lists contain notable authors and political figures created by wikipedia. This list is stolen from one publishers page without asserting any significance. Arbusto 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those lists are incomplete, lack clear inclusion standards and have no references. This list has the potential to be complete and has clear inclusion standards. Otherwise, you are certainly entitled to fail to see the significance of the Dummies series, but the significance is clearly implied, not the least because we have an article on the series. --JJay 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... most lists on wikipedia are incomplete. What's your point? --Arbusto 01:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that this list, unlike those, has fewer problems with the completeness of the list. If it's missing a title or two, that is easily correctable, and more likely because a new title was just released than any actual problem. And there's no question that the ...for Dummies series is itself notable. FrozenPurpleCube 01:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The series is notable that's why it has an article: ...for Dummies. This is a list taken from the publishers website of titles. Arbusto 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and since people may have an interest in knowing whether a particular book in the series has been published, well, I see the purpose of this list. Sorry, but the summaries in the main article are incomplete, and making them exhaustively complete would just be excessively detailed. Thus the seperate list. FrozenPurpleCube 13:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Guy. Eusebeus 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: JJay is committing bad faith to make a WP:POINT on my afds. He voted keep here, but in an effort to keep an unnotable diploma mill he wrote [1]"However, copying diploma mill names from government websites in order to construct a pseudo-official diploma mill list at wikipedia... It violates both the meaning and spirit of the list guidelines." Clearly, if he really believes copy and pasting a list is a copy-vio and not wiki-worthy he would vote delete here. This is user is gaming the system and following around my afds. Note I have had trouble with this user since April. Arbusto 02:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's an intersting comment and an interesting use of taking my words out of context from an unrelated article. I'll let slide the series of absurd and non-sensical accusations. But try to stick to the merits of this list. It shouldn't need reminding, but that is why we are here. --JJay 02:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding you'll "let it slide" because its true. Is copy and pasting a list a copyright violation? If yes, change your comment on this afd. If no, change your comments on the institute afd. Arbusto 02:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that is true is that you seem to be unwilling to engage in a rational debate concerning the merits of this article. My vote stands in keeping with the previous AfD. However, if you have copyvioed material here I would have no objection to its removal. See WP:Copyvio. --JJay 02:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unwilling to engaged in a debate ? You have reverted my comments and questions with a minor mark.[2]

Removed my comments again.[3] --Arbusto 06:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer this: Is copy and pasting a list a copyright violation as you said here[4]? Arbusto 03:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please argue the idea, not the person. See also WP:AGF FrozenPurpleCube 13:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGF doesn't mean turn a blind eye to the obvious. JJay has consistency done this to my edits since April; see his talk page or another ongoing afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International School of Management (ISM). Arbusto 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have done nothing to "your edits", nor does anything you are talking about have anything to do with this article. You nominated this list for deletion and I voted keep, just like I did in March [5]. Try to make a case for deleting this without resorting to innuendo, insinuation, personal attacks and unrelated accusations. --JJay 22:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deny changing my edits? What about this[6]? On this very page with you keep vote you managed to insult and undermine this afd and those who voted delete ("something this nom ignored when making this nomination") and contradicted yourself(you mentioned "unnotable" porn stars-- something you vote to keep[7]). Why don't you make a case for keeping an article by actually doing work to improve it? When was the last time you actually editted an article? Arbusto 22:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I generally remove trolling from my user page, as is my right (and you were warned not to post belligerent messages there). The rest of your comments have nothing to do with this list. Once again, you seem merely interested in making accusations and personal attacks, rather than convincing keep voters that this should be deleted. --JJay 22:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Original data. Dr Zak 22:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Praytell, how is this original data? Yes, measuring the temperature outside your window is original data/research, but this is merely an index of books. It's about as original as looking in the paper to see what the election results are... FrozenPurpleCube 04:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a directory (as opposed to a useful navigation tool for Wikipedia), called out specifically in WP:NOT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to say delete as it has not been improved during the six-month time span. "keep and clean up", yeah right. Punkmorten 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Relisting for more opinions. Arbusto 01:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' Wikipedia is not a directory. TJ Spyke 01:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' as nom Frédérick Lacasse 01:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable series of books. Clay4president 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what the ...for Dummies page is for. This is nothing more than a list of all the books. It's just listcruft. TJ Spyke 03:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft. This is of barely any use to anyone, and if someone actually wanted to know it, they could just go to the official site. What's more, it's borderline copyvio. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft, unencyclopedic. The list is outdated and redundant, even though there are sources, it has zero encycloepdic value. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 07:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or delete the entire Wikipedia database. To say an article should be deleted as its somewhere else on the web is ridiculous, as practically the only way Wiki verifies articles is if you can find alternative sources that back up that information on the web! IE if you can get the exact same information from another website. Jcuk 08:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not only a duplicate of other content, but it's also outside Wikipedia's remit. It's merely a directory, and no effort has been made or, indeed, can be made to make this a useful navigation tool for Wikipedia content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If the publisher's list only included current in-print books and we listed out-of-print books, AND we included ISBN references and listed authors for each individual title, AND we had articles on individual books then I might be inclined to change my mind. But right now it's just copyvio listcruft, and according to the article it's over six months out of date. It seems like the logical thing would be to delete this and just add the external link to the ...for Dummies page. --DeLarge 09:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Considering the sheer number of ...for Dummies books, I'd in fact split it further. --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 12:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a personal note, I am apalled by the lack of civility in this AfD discussion. But I agree with JJay; the clause of WP:NOT needs to be identified if it is to apply as evidence for supporting deletion. And while he has contributed subsequently to the downfall of civility in this discussion, I don't agree that JJay's original Keep vote insulted anybody. His points were all rational regardless of anybody's judgement on their applicability. --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 12:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps merge with ...for Dummies or make a category, but only if the books have articles themselves. --Alex (Talk) 14:21, 6 October 2006 (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.