Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books about Wikipedia

:{{la|List of books about Wikipedia}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_books_about_Wikipedia Stats])

:({{Find sources|List of books about Wikipedia}})

Contested prod. The topic appeared to be non-notable; Wikipedia is notable, but the notability is not inheritable. Also, Wikipedia already has a list of books on Wikipedia. Taku (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I don't quite follow the nom's reasoning. Wikipedia is notable, yes, but WHAT is not not inheriting the notability? Are you saying the notability is not notable? The books in the list is notable, wikipedia is notable. The list is can be managed and is finite. Roodog2k (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• :I'm guessing TakuyaMurata means WP:NOTINHERITED. -- KTC (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

::*Takuya Murata is a futurist, BTW. Roodog2k (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure what you mean when the list already exists. I see a bibliography, which isn't a list of books about Wikipedia. This list seems to concern itself with books as Wikipedia as the primary topic. Roodog2k (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep A list of notable entries. Lugnuts (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Every entry in the list is backed up with reliable sources, and the list is a convenient and concise introduction to all of them. --Ritchie333 (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I don't quite understand the the nominators rationale, we have List of films about Wikipedia, all the books on the list have reliable sources and are independently notable. JayJay^{Talk to me} 18:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'm sympathetic to your perspective, Taku, but as long as a monstrosity like Wikipedia in culture exists, this is going nowhere. I'm even going to say keep. Along with list of films about Wikipedia, this is an example of how we should do articles that collect mentions of the project. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep List of notable items meets criterion for list notability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia Studies is actually a minor growth industry in academia. I'm not 100% sold that this can't be done as well and more visibly as a "Further Reading" at Wikipedia. However, benefit of the doubt here — a good list and useful navigational device, both. Carrite (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The only argument for deletion that merits serious consideration is that this article mirrors material in the bibliography of the article Wikipedia. However, this list article is different in that this is a list of notable books, following standard guidelines for lists, while the Wikipedia article bibliography should contain useful books regardless of notability. And it is perfectly legitimate to have a list separate from the relevant article, so this meets guidelines for lists. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

::*Comment That bibliography contains books and references that mention Wikipedia, but this list article lists books only about Wikipedia. That is what makes the list manageable and finite, thus a valid list. Roodog2k (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Snow keep per WP:SNOW and WP:CCC. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2012 (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.