Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pocket Ref


 * 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   no consensus. Several relevant sources have been cited in the discussion, but per WP:V, they must be cited in the article to support its content, or it may eventually be deleted.  Sandstein  08:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Pocket Ref

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Fails every point of Notability (books). Mentions are trivial or reviews that list existence with no critical commentary. Has not won a major literary award. Has not been cited as a major contribution to a motion picture, art form, event, or religious movement. Not known to be the subject of instruction anywhere. Author isn't even notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. Article is mostly ad copy and has been unreferenced for years. Wtshymanski (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I take it we can't call Mythbusters a religious movement then? -- N  Y  Kevin  @133, i.e. 02:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep A standby for contractors, engineers and technicians for decades. In a few minutes, I found coverage of the Pocket Ref in Fine Woodworking magazine, Make magazine, the Mythbusters TV show, and books including the Good House Book by Clarke Snell, Using the Engineering Literature, and the Real Goods Solar Living Sourcebook.  Personally, I have used this book for twice as long as Wikipedia has been around - I've owned it since 1989.  Most reviews probably predate the Internet. Notable without a doubt. By the way, since when does an author have to be notable for a book to be notable?  I never heard of that. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Pocket Ref is itself referenced in books on an extremely wide range of subjects, including data analysis, renewable energy, cinema art direction, stage lighting, archaeology, quantum mechanics, woodworking, physical control methods and theater production. In "Architecture Minnesota" Vol. 32, a reviewer says "The Pocket Ref makes Google look like an information donkey cart". Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it non-trivial coverage or just "Hey, I use the Pocket Ref, here's what's in it"? Can you provide any cites of critical commentary or critical review (note, critical not necessarily meaning "adverse")? Author notability helps book notability but is not essential, it is just one of a set of criteria. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are excerpts from the review in Gaiam Real Goods solar living sourcebook, by John Shaeffer and Doug Pratt: "This amazing book", "set of encyclopedias or Internet search engines in your shirt pocket", "a big chunk of knowledge in a very small package", and "no desktop is complete without one." I've also learned that Pocket Ref is cited in the footnotes or reading lists of at least 24 other books on a wide range of subjects. Cullen328 (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That certainly helps on notability. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename maybe - I have heard of a pocket reference guide, and I am wondering if this should not be renamed Pocket reference guides. BLUE DOG TN 05:06, 3 December 2010 (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.