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.
RL0919 (
talk) 17:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Not a notable person. An internet search and Google Scholar search reveals that this man does not satisfy the requirements of
WP:GNG or
WP:SIGCOV.
Hadal1337 (
talk) 16:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep under
WP:AUTHOR, item 3: "work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". There are multiple reviews in academic journals and magazines. E.g., with a simple Google search:
1) Links 1 and 2 both refer to the book Pioneer of the Computer (both locked behind a paywall nonetheless). The said book has a total of 3 reviews on Amazon, which I think we can agree, is not a "well-known work".
2) Links 3 and 4 refer to the book Science and Reform: Selected Works of Charles Babbage. The said book has a total of 3 reviews on Goodreads, again, not a "well-known work".
Reviews for the purpose of NAUTHOR refers to academic reviews, not some joe-schmo reviewing a book on Amazon.
Curbon7 (
talk) 12:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)reply
According to item 3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." My point of pointing out reviews is that he has not created any significant or well-known work. Anyone can publish a book, well known means that people actually read your book and comment on it. Also, there are no mentions of reviews referring to "academic reviews" on
WP:AUTHOR, therefore my point still stands.
Hadal1337 (
talk) 15:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)reply
That's not how that works. We do not assess whether a book is significant in its field using Amazon reviews, which would be an absolutely ludicrous method. We assess significance based on whether other subject-matter experts consider the book to be significant, which is what critical academic reviews as linked above substantiate.
Curbon7 (
talk) 15:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: Appears to be a
WP:NAUTHOR-pass based on my comment above and the academic reviews found by Jpbowen.
Curbon7 (
talk) 12:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep by virtue of passing
WP:AUTHOR: multiple reviews for multiple books.
XOR'easter (
talk) 15:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)reply
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.