Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just for Fun


 * 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. A merger can be discussed elsewhere and probably should involve the disambig page  So Why  16:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Just for Fun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. I could not find reliable sources to prove the notability. -- M h hossein   talk 11:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)   M h hossein   talk 11:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. There are sources, but only trivial mentions. — The   Magnificentist  12:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per new sources by Czar. The general term made it difficult for me to look for reliable sources. (updated) 02:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to Just for Fun (book) and Redirect to Linus Torvalds as plausible alternative to deletion. Make Just for Fun (disambiguation) the primary topic.
 * Book reviews:


 * Valsamidis, Tony. "Red Hats off to a low maintenance son." Times Higher Education Supplement, no. 1575, 2003, p. 28. via Gale
 * blurb:
 * blurb:
 * blurb: http://archive.arstechnica.com/etc/linux/2003/linux.ars-12032003.html
 * blurb:
 * blurb: http://archive.arstechnica.com/etc/linux/2003/linux.ars-12032003.html


 * czar 08:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Czar for the sources. The subject's notable with them. However, I can't withdraw as "delete" is already casted. -- M h hossein   talk 13:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you can, but the discussion just can't be closed early unless agrees. I still think it would be hard to write a full-featured article with the above sourcing. It would be fine to cover the autobiography in the author's article, though.  czar  18:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling the Book Review Index online database was incomplete, so I looked up the physical volume. There are a few more published reviews from the period, but they're short (51–500 words):
 * Bookpage May 2001, p20
 * New Scientist v170 May 5, 2001, p45
 * Newsweek v137 March 19, 2001, p62H
 * Publishers Weekly v248 April 23, 2001, p60
 * My recommendation remains the same, but there you have it. If someone were to ever dig up these sources, the book could warrant a separate article, but until we can verify that the older reviews have any useful content, it's best to spin out summary style and merge only then czar  18:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Czar's merger proposal. What do you think ? -- M h hossein   talk 05:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't been part of the conversation, but briefly looking over the sources, czar's recommendation of summarize and merge seems very reasonable and of due weight. --Mark viking (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2017 (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.