Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning Python
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Learning Python (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability - raised on Talk: in April, but no further comments.
This article, first of all has no substantive content. Other than the publisher's metadata, there is nothing here.
Secondly, is this a significant or notable book? It is a popular book, certainly. Any book of the form "Learning <popular-programming-language>, O'Reilly" is going to sell in millions. But that is WP:NOTINHERITED notability, from O'Reilly and Python. This is not even the leading or most recommended Python tutorial, that would be Beazley's Python Essential Reference, ISBN 0672329786
Other than WP:NOTDIR, why is this article here?
Does this article stand up, for either of these problems? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NBOOK little coverage in secondary sources, has not been the subject of any non-trivial review. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- article appears to be promotional in nature, while the reviews are rather trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as still nothing amounting to meaningful substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete just promoting a single book? W Nowicki (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2016 (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.