Talk:Thinking in Java

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Software: Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Java Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Java, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaWikipedia:WikiProject JavaTemplate:WikiProject JavaJava articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

JavaLobby reference

IMHO this review is really questionable, at least because it has an obviously affiliate link to Amazon, and therefore is inherently biased (it also provides an incentive to write a review merely to get affiliate revenues, which makes it ineligible for WP:N purposes). I'm going to remove it unless explanation why it can/should be considered reliable is provided. Ipsign (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per comment of User:AQFK on Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, this review is a user-submitted one to a Web2.0 site w/o editorial oversight and therefore doesn't qualify as WP:RS. Accordingly, I will remove it. Ipsign (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]