Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea diSessa


 * 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.    Sandstein   19:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrea diSessa

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject does not seem to me to comply with Notability (academics): did not receive awards, is not regarded (or the article does not claim he to be) especially important, has written some books and articles but none appears to be "significant and well-known", and so on. Goochelaar (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-notable book by the subject. -- neon white user page talk 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep She's a university professor, and that in itself is notability. She's also written books, which is further evidence of notability. This article needs to be cleaned up and sourced, but she is notable by profession. PeterSymonds (talk)  22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Being a university professor is not a criteria for notability as suggested above. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF Also adding Turtle Geometry, non-notable book by the subject to the afd. -- neon white user page talk 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Not a woman, by the way. I added the website to the external link. Not all professors are notable, but he is: member of National Academy of Education, author of notable books, holder of full professorship at Berkeley (Professor of Cognition and Development, Graduate School of Education) adequate article, that just needs some expansion. As for the book, Turtle Geometry is published by MIT Press, is cited by 431 other works in Google Scholar, a classic computer science textbook,  is held in 1031 libraries according to worldCat, has 38 books listed there based on it or about the subject diSessa introduced in it.   DGG (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly none of these are criteria for notability according to Notability (books). -- neon white user page talk 15:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * see the section on Academic books on that page: "notability should rely on the reputation of the academic press publishing it, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, [and other possibilities]" Read the entire guideline, please, not just the first paragraph. DGG (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Andy DiSessa is clearly an important figure in mathematics education, as a search trivially demonstrates. A lousy article, to be sure, but much more notable than many academics we routinely keep. Improve. --Dhartung | Talk 04:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both. Google scholar finds (among some dups of the book itself) a dozen or so papers by other authors with "Turtle Geometry" in their title, based on this book, which was at one point highly notable for promoting the idea that kids can learn to program computers at a very young age. For that matter, I'm pretty sure I have a copy of the book myself. And a search for di Sessa reveals many other highly cited works, so he's notable for more than just that. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again none of those are criteria for notability. see Notability (books). -- neon white user page talk 15:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a clear pass of WP:BOOK #1 and a likely pass of #4. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on DiSessa himself: I just added a little to the article. He has by my count 11 publications with over 100 citations each in Google scholar. He has a named chair at an excellent university. And he is a member of the National Academy of Education; according to the source I added, "membership is limited to 125 people whose accomplishments in education are judged outstanding." So that's three different claims of notability any one of which would be enough for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The article's writing is poor and it is only a stub. But the person is notable as an academic. And this article can always be improved. Artene50 (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per David Eppstein. GoogleScholar results are very impressive and show a substantial number of highly cited works. Nsk92 (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sorry, but I don't believe the article should be kept. There is only one source of information, and the only notibility is the person is a professor. It could possibly be merged into a Professors of Berkeley article or something to that effect, but there is no reason to keep this article.-- LAA Fan  21:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both -- I am old enough to remember when Logo and Turtle geometry were the next big thing. Maybe they didn't turn out to be as great as anticipated.  But they certainly merit coverage here.  And the creators merit coverage.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Berkeley does not give out full professorships like candy, and so his having one is a clear indication that his peers think him notable.  In general, full professor at a research university is enough to satisfy WP:PROF # 1 & 2; the book disputed above shows that he meets # 3 & 5; the only reason I can't say anything about criteria 4 & 6 is because I don't know enough about him.  This should be open and shut.  Discussions about the book should be under a separate AfD.  RJC Talk Contribs 15:56, 31 May 2008 (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.