Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Lemay


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Today, this was retored & userfied to User:Gobonobo/Laura Lemay per request at WP:REFUND. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Laura Lemay

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable writer of computer books. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. This article was declined for speedy deletion (CSD A7, G11), however I'm not able to find any assertion of notability within the article as it is, and my research indicates a dearth of reliable, third-party coverage that might amount to anything substantial or in-depth. In fact, my results were almost exclusively pieces the subject had authored, or adverts she had posted. There are no indications of awards, this subject is not widely cited, nor is she regarded as an important figure in her field. JFHJr (㊟) 17:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-known IT author with many publications that have been widely reviewed.--Michig (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete the subject does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines. Stormbay (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. She is absolutely an important figure in her field. She easily meets WP:ACADEMIC; in particular, where it says "Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." There are over 6K ghits when searching for "Laura Lemay" syllabus, and most of those ghits are to colleges and universities where her books are/have been required texts. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 10:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: How does her appearance in syllabi fulfill any WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR-specific requirements at all? Nobody has ever claimed she is an WP:ACADEMIC, so it would be inappropriate to apply those guidelines to this author. If this subject is not widely cited in actual publications, as opposed to reading lists, she fails. I'm afraid your points seem unrelated to establishing this author's notability under current guidelines. JFHJr (㊟) 21:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ACADEMIC says:
 * If the article doesn't say her books are often required texts for higher-ed courses, then that just means the article should be fixed, not deleted. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Inadequate coverage in mainstream published media (e.g. Google news archive) to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, and WP:PROF seems far out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: In what way is WP:ACADEMIC "far out of reach"? What's your criteria for "authored several books that are widely used as textbooks"? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly, she is not by any stretch of the imagination an academic. She has no advanced degree, does not publish research, holds no academic appointment, does not teach, etc. So WP:ACADEMIC is not the right criterion: WP:AUTHOR is. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG.  Googling suggests they don't exist.  The subject is the author of series of WP:run-of-the-mill "how-to" books, which falls far, far, far short of the impact clearly anticipated by WP:ACADEMIC, WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR as appropriate to a presumption of notability in lieu of sources.  Msnicki (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Googling suggests they don't exist — FFS, are you joking? I take it you didn't look very hard, or you would have come across articles like this one:


 * "Two and a half years ago, Laura Lemay was one of thousands of tech writers slaving away in Silicon Valley, thoroughly unthrilled by the prospect of pumping out yet another lifeless software manual. She yearned to write books with broader appeal, but “everybody told me you’ll never make any money,” Lemay recalls. Today, her name is on 23 different computer books, some of which have sold hundreds of thousands of copies. She has fans and she commands big advances, but she’s more than just a success — she’s a brand name, a publishing power in her own right. Software executives come to her, hats in hand, hoping she’ll deign to write a guide to their latest product."

- Laura Lemay's Beta Books by Andrew Leonard (February 27, 1997) Salon


 * or this:
 * "Laura Lemay’s wonderful books — from Teach Yourself Web Publishing With HTML in a Week to Teach Yourself Perl and Java — have served as primers for many of today’s web denizens."

- Interview with Laura Lemay Online and Interview with Laura Lemay by Suzanne Stefanac (June 21, 2006), from the book/blog Dispatches from Blogistan: A Travel Guide for the Modern Blogger


 * I haven't updated her article myself (I'm sure I'd be considered a competitor of hers, and therefore have a COI), but more like this is easily-findable — if you look. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – If you've got a possible WP:COI with the subject as a competitor within an industry, do you think this might inform your view of notability when it comes to persons in your industry? It may be a bit early, I think a consensus as to applying WP:ACADEMIC and WP:PROFESSOR in this case is emerging. JFHJr (㊟) 05:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got no problem admitting that I know who the VIPs are in my field, and I think I've pointed out enough sources above to show that it's not just my personal opinion. If you say there's an emerging consensus as to her being encyclopedic, I'm a happy camper. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I said a consensus is emerging. I didn't say that's what it was. The consensus I mention is that this subject would not be proper for consideration under WP:ACADEMIC, a backup to the WP:BASIC. BTW, there's absolutely no way blogistan would pass WP:RS to support a WP:BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 00:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I guess a consensus that we would follow existing policy was just wishful thinking on my part… sigh. Out of curiosity, why wouldn't Dispatches from Blogistan: A Travel Guide for the Modern Blogger—a book written by a reputable author from a reputable publisher—be considered a WP:RS? Because it's a book that's about blogs/blogging? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:07, 2 December 2011 (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.