Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bookarmy


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Bookarmy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Website still in beta-testing phase Passportguy (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment G-mail is still in Beta and I don't know how many years I've been using it now. That really no longer means anything and is not the determination of notability for websites, see WP:WEB. Drawn Some (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a fairly important development in the publishing world, with the biggest British book publishers collaborating on something that seems genuinely new.  It appears to be a moderately invaluable book-finding utility as well, so it seems scholarly and encyclopaedic to me.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to look at WP:WEB, too, because you aren't giving any valid reasons to keep, just like the nominator gave no valid reason to delete! Drawn Some (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm? That's perfectly valid. Want me to cite the policies it's based on?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, I'm trying to learn and I haven't seen anyone use that argument before. Just point me to the guideline. Drawn Some (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not guidelines. Two of the oldest and most fundamental policies. :) WP:5P: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers ... " — and Encyclopedia says "An encyclopedia (or encyclopaedia) is a comprehensive written compendium that holds information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge."  A website containing information on all books in the English language by ISBN is about as encyclopaedic as it's humanly possible to get. When you're dealing with something fundamentally encyclopaedic (and only then), WP:WEB has to succumb to WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it."— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing that with me. Drawn Some (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge Worth including in the encyclopedia. I could see it merged to Harper Collins perhaps, but deletion doesn't seem a good outcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A significant development, fortunately with just adequate sources.DGG (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs work but is an innovative venture with substantial interest. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2009 (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.