Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superior Person's Book of Words

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 07:06, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Superior Person's Book of Words

Seems to be an advertisement for a book, no noteworthy information. delete. Ben talk contr 04:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and allow for an organic growth. I have just rewritten it into a book stub and added its ISBN number. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having an ISDN number doesn't make it noteworthy.--Dave63 10:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Most people have upgraded to DSL by now. Keep —RaD Man (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could apply for an ISBN number for my backside if I wanted to... actually, that's not a bad idea... Master Thief Garrett 11:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable and widely-published book, part of a series, Amazon rank around 10K, not bad at all for a book that's been around for two decades. If this were a sci-fi or fantasy book, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. :0P Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - features regularly in The Times and seen around. r3m0t ^talk 22:03, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Well known book. Capitalistroadster 22:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real published book. Klonimus 00:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. A published book and real also! How great. If the book is that well known, why don't you write something about it.

I wonder seriously whether wikipedia is a place for more or less arbitrarily reviews of books or restaurants or whatever. It's not a telephone directory or something. If you look at how the article was like when I put it here for vfD, you would laugh probably. Now, I wonder, how you want to extend the article: "It's a nice book with a lot of words"... I mean is there something beyond the fact that it exists, that it has an ISBN, and is real real? Ben talk contr 05:15, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

- Restaurants are much harder to verify, especially since they don't show up in libraries. They also change very frequently. Kappa 18:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep and allow for organic growth it is a real book Yuckfoo 17:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very well-known book. I've owned a copy for nearly twenty years - except mine is called "The Superior Person's Little Book of Words". --Centauri 01:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again: That this book is real real real doesn't make it encyclopedic. This is not an argument.

The one argument here for "keep" has been importance, i.e. "well-known book", i.e. a good seller, and being mentioned in The Times. That may be and I didn't know of it. That indicates there could be something noteworthy about it beside that it is a book and it has a ISBN and many people bought it (which is not noteworthy by itself). If that's the case I withdraw my "delete". Ben talk contr 06:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, real book. Would fit nicely in an "encyclopedia of vocabulary builders". Kappa 08:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite well-known (not that notability is a deletion criterion, but... ;-)). James F. (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's encyclopedic, it's worth having. Scott Gall 22:12, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

I hope you weren't meaning to include vandalism in your definition of "encyclopedic." Nazism isn't cool 22:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same reasons as Scott Gall. Nazism isn't cool 22:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.