Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayle Laakmann McDowell


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Gayle Laakmann McDowell

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Was dePRODED by creator without addressing  the issue(s). Concern was: ''Non-notable author. The only thing that comes close to notability is being picked by CreateSpace as a poster-child for their new service (which doesn't appear to be mentioned outside of press releases). Since the company hasn't achieved notability, there's not even notability to not inherit.'' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I PROD'd this in New Page Patrol, and it this person hasn't got more notable since. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Her notability stems from her books which are bestsellers and have generally received good reviews. Her books are notable per criteria 1 and 4 of WP:BKCRIT. This obviously makes her notable too. As for CreateSpace, only one of her (bestselling) books was published by CreateSpace, the other (bestselling) book was published by Wiley. Vintelok (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment for a book to be notable as a best seller, we would need a independent refs suppporting that. Currently there are a bunch of press releases which just claim it's a "best seller" and an interview which suggests it didn't make it into the top 250 books. That doesn't sound notable to me. The real question is what it's peak position on the NYTimes list (or notable independent list) was. See WP:NOTINHERITED for comphrensive discussion as to why any notability from the book would not translate to notability to the author. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The New York Times Bestseller List (and other similar lists) almost never include technical/programming books, so you shouldn't expect her books to be found on those lists. However certain sources do claim that her books are bestsellers, and the article does link to them. Moreover, her books unequivocally meet criterion no 4 of WP:BKCRIT: The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. There are plenty of sources which prove this claim to be true for her books. Per WP:BKCRIT, meeting only one of those criteria is sufficient for notability. And if her books become notable, she becomes notable too. Vintelok (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "The New York Times Bestseller List (and other similar lists) almost never include technical/programming books" perhaps because so few of them are notable? "There are plenty of sources which prove this claim to be true" I'm not seeing any support for this claim in any of the references currently in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. On "Her notability stems from her books"; yes, per WP:NOTINHERITED even if her books were notable it would not make her notable, though the article contains no evidence that she or the books are notable by the standards of Wikipedia.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:12, 1 September 2012 (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.