Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Meyers


 * 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. (non-admin closure) MacMedtalk stalk 02:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Scott Meyers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY, either written by the subject or interviews of him. Googling turned up nothing better. The subject is clearly prolific, having written quite a number of books and articles but the necessary secondary coverage indicating that others have taken note of him is lacking. Msnicki (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Meyers is a well-known and respected author, who has written a number of very highly regarded books on C++. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But what has anyone written about him? Do you know of any reliable independent secondary sources?  We do not consider authors notable just because they've written a lot of books.  Msnicki (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just that he has written lots of books, but that he has written several of the most highly regarded books on C++. Ask any experienced C++ programmer for his top 5 books on C++ and he'll probably mention at least one book by Meyers (i.e. Effective C++) if not more. Effective C++ is in its third edition and the first edition sold almost 100,000 copies (according to Amazon), which is a lot for a technical book. The problem is that it's going to be hard to find reliable sources for his notability, unless book reviews count. He has spoken at the ACCU_(organisation) conference (speakers). CodeTheorist (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a reference for the Dr Dobbs award to the page, and to be honest when you look at the other recipients of the award that alone should be enough to demonstrate his notability. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Meyers is a well-known name amongst coders, not just C++. The Dobbs award meets the letter of WP requirement. I don't understand the nominator's comment, "We need to establish that he, not just his work, is notable."  Are they planning to also nominated John Kennedy Toole and J D Salinger? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That was my edit comment and I didn't realize it was confusing until after I'd saved. By the point, I couldn't correct it.  What I meant was, notability requires that we find that this individual is notable, not just that he's written a lot of books.  If you look at the diff, perhaps it'll be clearer. I disagree that a Dobbs award qualifies.  It's not exactly a Nobel prize.  And if he's that well-known, why hasn't anyone written about him? Msnicki (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The verifiable references are rolling in now, so I think the argument to delete is moot now. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 03:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Meyer's work is highly cited, as evidenced by a Google Scholar search, which, without too much stretching, is a demonstration of notability under WP:SCHOLAR. Moreover, in reply to Msnick, notability of creative professionals (such as authors) and academics *is* often inherited from their works, this is fairly explicit in the relevant notability guidelines. I'm kinda surprised we don't have an article on the original "Effective C++", given that it's been published in so many forms and editions. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you tried doing an article on a notable book? 8-(  There's a pack of deletionists who hate the things on principle. Of course reading it first, or being familiar with the topic, is no barrier to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 5 July 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.