Deletion of List of ...for Dummies books (2 nomination)

Comment: Please argue the idea, not the person.  See also 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: JJay is committing bad faith to make a  on my afds. He voted keep here, but in an effort to keep an unnotable diploma mill he wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FInternational_School_of_Management_%28ISM%29&diff=78981912&oldid=78980648"However, '''copying diploma mill names from government websites in order to construct a pseudo-official diploma mill list at wikipedia'''... It violates both the meaning and spirit of the list guidelines." Clearly, if he really believes copy and pasting a list is a copy-vio and not wiki-worthy he would vote delete here. This is user is gaming the system and following around my afds. Note I have had trouble with this user since April
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: This is a directory (as opposed to a useful navigation tool for Wikipedia), called out specifically in 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: as I advocated before.  This is a  mirror of a list which is available online from an authoritative source.  The list at the publishers is complete, accurate and up to date - our list is not guaranteed to be so as new books are published all the time.  Previous and present keep arguments often rested on the fact that ...for Dummies books are notable; that is not questioned, but '''we already have an article on ...for Dummies books''', this is just a list of them at an unspecified date.  There are precisely zero bluelinks to individual books, making this list considerably ''less'' useful than the one on the publisher's website, which has a short synopsis for each book.  This list violates  as both a directory and an indiscriminate collection of information (why this particular publisher's catalogue?).  This is simply a copy and paste of the listing on the publisher's website on an unstated date; "'''do not add copies of primary sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: listcruft which verges on . The series is notable - individual titles aren't, and a list of titles in the series is not encyclopedic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM)