Deletion of List of pioneers in computer science

Comment: The topic passes  as one can immediately find entire books about it, including
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: Article is suboptimal, however it is |verifiable. 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP)

Comment: This may be a difficult article, but does not seem to me to be unsuitable. Certainly a list of this sort passes . I see the difficulty of /, but prefer to see that dealt with through consensus on the talk page rather than deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:NOR)

Comment: My first reaction was that this topic is indeed begging for , because "pioneer" is a slippery and subjective term. For one, given that the basic requirement for a doctorate is to make an original contribution to knowledge, all academic scientists must have "pioneered" ''something'', however minor. But per {{u|Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.}}'s comment above, there does appear to be a substantial body of reliable sources that discuss this group, and while the article is not currently in the best state, discussions on the talk page indicate that it's on the way to being brought into line with our core content policies. So it's a keep for me, but stressing that I'd hate to see this AfD |taken as a precedent that all "List of pioneers in " articles are acceptable. That seems like a very dubious and unencyclopaedic cross-categorisation to be getting into, and I think we should avoid them unless there is solid and specific sourcing for a particular case. &ndash;&#8239
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOTLAW)