Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela McCorduck

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. Tone 11:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela McCorduck[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Unreferenced bio about a person that does not meet WP:AUTHOR notability guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Machines Who Think is a classic in the AI Genre, bringing the concepts of AI to the masses back in the late 70's, when the field was still new and cool. scope_creep (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her work on the history of artificial intelligence (Machines Who Think, The Fifth Generation, etc.) are the most popular and widely respected books on this subject. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Author of significant works. The New Scientist says the classic Machines Who Think (A. K. Peters, $19.95) has come out in a 25th anniversary edition. Significant writeup on The Fifth Generation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

possible keep - if someone can post more sources like that then I say keep. Obviously New Scientist is a significant journal.Willbennett2007 (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - The purpose of AFD is to determine if an article should be in wikipedia. the question for this article hinges on the notability of the author. I posted two items which are easily accessible from the Internet. But a google news search (there's a handy link that's provided as part of the nomination) shows that there is plenty more material behind pay walls. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some more reviews of her books: [1], [2], [3]. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can help me understand wikipedia. I don't know what makes an author 'notable' I did an article on an author (of many books) posted third party reviews of the books from several sources, and still the article was deleted because the author was 'not notable'. Short of being a household name (like Richard Dawkins, Michio Kaku, Carl Sagan, Stephen King)what makes one author 'notable' and another 'not notable'?Willbennett2007 (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I cannot comment on why the article you had created was deleted. Notability for authors is covered by the general notability guidelines which apply to all subjects, and by the topic specific criteria of WP:AUTHOR. In this case, Pamela McCorduck clearly satisifies criterion 3 of the topic specific criteria with multiple reviews of her body of work. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2010 (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.