Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animal illustrations featured on O'Reilly publications


 * 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; this is a borderline case, and some good arguments have been put forth about the notability of the animal covers, but ultimately the problems with copyright (the engravings are public domain, the whole covers are not), the lack of notability of most of the candidates for the list, appear unsurmountable. The cover concept is notable, but well covered by O'Reilly Media book covers. &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

List of animal illustrations featured on O&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable list. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Undeath (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unfortunately. I like the concept, but the problem is that I think it runs afoul of WP:TRIVIA.  It also seems to be a place that would be a catalog of O'Reilly books, inadvertently being somewhat coatrackish.  I think it's great to see this list, but not here. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 06:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:TRIVIA is not applicable as the items are not miscellaneous - the topic is quite specific. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Probable problems with fair-use of copyrighted images. We should use fair-use images on the minimum and it is impossible to exclude images here given the article's title.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The animal engravings are public domain - that's one reason they were chosen. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The animals are PD but the book cover itself isn't perhaps if you could get (or crop) the original engravings and have third party reliable sources, then the List would be feasible.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 13:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sorry. Cute idea, but not practical. Keep. Changed vote per my remarks below.Sensiblekid (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not practical? The article already exists and pretty much writes itself.  Colonel Warden (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was not clear. I mean the copyright issue makes keeping the article impractical, not that the article is itself impractical.Sensiblekid (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A quick search indicates that these animal covers are quite notable and there is enough material to support an article. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You only searched for the books, not the illustrations. This list is about the illustrations, not the books. Illustrations alone do not constitute notability.Undeath (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't quite get what you mean. Can you clarify please? Sensiblekid (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The search indicates that the animal illustrations are often remarked upon. We don't have to reproduce all the illustrations here - a list of the titles and corresponding animals would be fine, with just one or two covers as examples.  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would support Keep on that basis.Sensiblekid (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This is about as trivial as it gets. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Trivial, perhaps, but notable. People talk about the animals as a whole, and refer to books by their animal. Wikipedia would be a diminished without it. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we then have an article on each of my pets? —SlamDiego&#8592;T 18:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Perhaps fun, but not notable. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 18:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Dagnabbit, all kinds of WP:INTERESTING but I don't see notability. I'd love it if someone could show notability. Heh, does O'Reilly have a GFDL wiki? -Verdatum (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - O'Reilly books are often referred by the animal, especially the camel book. This trend though is not unique to the O'Reilly book, for example the dragon book. I don't know though if a list of such books mappings however is useful even if it is interesting. PaleAqua (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is trivial information, unless somebody can find significant coverage for "animal illustrations on O reilly publications" Corpx (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm quite sure the idea of using animals in the cover of O'Reilly books is notable. Here are a couple of primary sources: "O'Reilly -- Animal Magnetism: Making O'Reilly Animals" and "O'Reilly -- Origin of Species: A History of O'Reilly Animals". Google searching turns up plenty of commentary. --seav (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The refs that you provide are to O'Reilly's own discussion of it's animals. I'd be willing to join in claiming that these are reliable sources, but the issue here is notability, and O'Reilly's promotion of its stuff doesn't establish that. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 07:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Similar article: O'Reilly Media book covers. --seav (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge the two articles. the illustration series is very noteworthy and significant, but one article is enough. I think there are a very considerable number more to add. DGG (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge. Clearly notable as per seav refs. Annamonckton (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? seav refs are to O'Reilly talking about their own stuff. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 07:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge John Vandenberg (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Delete as there is no evidence of notability. Sorry, DGG. Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2008 (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.