Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books for copy editors


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

List of books for copy editors
Can't possibly be NPOV. --zenohockey 04:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete A simple bibliography, not worth the electrons to hold. --Calton | Talk 06:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  06:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NPOV. Possibly fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat 09:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think this was meant to be "recommended reading" or such - I think it was just meant to be a compilation of works that copyeditors typically have on their desk. I could do the same thing for my field, technical writing.  Anyone who is in the field knows that there are certain books you HAVE to have on your desk.  That being said, the article needs to be sourced and have some prose written to go with it. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 15:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - These tools don't seem to be any different than any other professional writer's. Maybe merge/redirect to a list of English resources or something?  Wickethewok 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The list of reference books is different among disciplines.  For example, most of those books are hopelessly out of scope for someone in my field - I have the Chicago Manual but most of my other references are specialized for technical writers. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 17:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This bibliography may be useful in terms of copy editing (which links to it), but I'm not sure it passes List. It has no stated rationale for inclusion - for example, criteria on the notability of the books to be included, as determined by some reliable third party source. "Have to have them on your desk" is fine - as long as someone reliable has said that, and determined what those books are. Also, as it stands, the list lacks the ISBN and author information that might make it actually useful. But its arbitrary nature is the main problem IMO. --DaveG12345 20:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure if precedent supports that. There was a list of movies Roger Ebert deemed the worst ever that was deleted as (if I recall correctly) copyvio&mdash;even though there was evidence that he actually helped edit the article.  Moral: If the list is written by someone whose opinions are objectively important (in this case, say, the editor of the AP stylebook), it should go in "External links."  Otherwise, remove it.  --zenohockey 20:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, Delete. POV list. --DaveG12345 20:46, 26 June 2006 (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.