Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oregon Blue Book


 * 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. Per SNOW. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Oregon Blue Book

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely non-notable directory-style book. If it generates some reviews, or makes it to the NYT bestseller list, we can revisit this. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The relevant notability criterion is WP:NBOOK. Valfontis (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: If the Oregon Bluebook is not notable, then neither is the The World Factbook or Old Farmer's Almanac.  While there might be little coverage of the publication itself, all are widely cited in other publications.  —EncMstr (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is an odd comparison. The Farmers Almanac is a cultural institution which is itself the subject of academic studies, the World Factbook is of a slightly different scale ("World") and is cited as a reliable source all over the place including in Wikipedia. That the World Factbook is widely cited is evident through the 1261 hits for the phrase in JSTOR (which includes reviews of the work, ); I see a couple of hits for "Oregon Blue Book", where it's cited for an Oregon fact here and there--but this is not a valid comparison. Now, and this applies to the yay-sayers below as well, can we get some secondary references that actually discuss this book? I have not found any. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Widely cited reference guide. The article may have some CoI/POV issues to clean up, but I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article shouldn't have any COI or POV issues. As far as I know no one with a COI has edited the article. I'm a fan of the SoS office and a state worker but I've never worked for the SoS or Archives. Valfontis (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That may be -- I haven't looked through the article in any real detail, but I know there were some CoI edits on Kate Brown made previously. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NBOOKS: "Common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, how widely the book has been cited or written about... [As one would expect, it has been widely cited], the number of editions of the book, whether it has been reprinted... [It's had numerous editions and been reprinted many times since its creation in 1953 1911]" TJRC (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note it was first published in 1911. Valfontis (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I had 1953 on the brain from the amendment date in ORE § 177.120, but of course it was around before that amendment. TJRC (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Long running, seminal, official publication produced by the Oregon state government. A "reliable source" for Wikipedia purposes, I actually found this deletion debate by searching for the subject and seeing the notice at the top. The release of these books used to be announced in the press biannually, they used to be a very big deal as an official state almanac. Per TJRC's citation of NBOOK: "Common sense should prevail." Carrite (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just so it's clear I'm not bullshitting (and counting towards GNG): "Oregon Blue Book Makes Biennial Reappearance" (Bend Bulletin, April 27, 1981)........... "Oregon Blue Book Being Distributed" (Eugene Register-Guard, Sept. 21, 1937).......... "Oregon Blue Book Cover Photo Contest" (Hells Canyon Journal, May 3, 2006)......... "New Oregon Blue Book Published," (Eugene Register-Guard, April 10, 1983)......... These sort of announcements and mini-reviews appeared in many newspapers around the state every two years for decades (including those not part of the Google newspaper project, just as The Oregonian and the Salem Statesman-Journal. Clear GNG pass if the Use Common Sense argument doesn't appeal... Carrite (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Trout to the nominator for the flippant and somewhat insulting suggestion that a reference book like this would ever "make the New York Times best-seller list" so that this deletion might be "revisited." Carrite (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize to the book for hurting its feelings. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2015 (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.