R. Anthony Hyman : An internet search and Google Scholar search reveals that this man does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV .  Hadal1337 ( talk ) 16:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Computing ,  and United Kingdom .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep under WP:AUTHOR , item 3: "work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews".  There are multiple reviews in academic journals and magazines.  E.g., with a simple Google search: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002072098302000329 https://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/1025100 https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12416853-900-messing-around-on-the-river-review-of-science-and-reform-selected-works-of-charles-babbage-edited-by-anthony-hyman/ https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/66998 I suspect there are more.  -- Jonathan Bowen ( talk ) 08:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1) Links 1 and 2 both refer to the book Pioneer of the Computer (both locked behind a paywall nonetheless).  The said book has a total of 3 reviews on Amazon, which I think we can agree, is not a "well-known work".  2) Links 3 and 4 refer to the book Science and Reform: Selected Works of Charles Babbage.  The said book has a total of 3 reviews on Goodreads, again, not a "well-known work".  Therefore, not notable.  Hadal1337 ( talk ) 09:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reviews for the purpose of NAUTHOR refers to academic reviews, not some joe-schmo reviewing a book on Amazon.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 12:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to item 3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work."  My point of pointing out reviews is that he has not created any significant or well-known work.  Anyone can publish a book, well known means that people actually read your book and comment on it.  Also, there are no mentions of reviews referring to "academic reviews" on WP:AUTHOR , therefore my point still stands.  Hadal1337 ( talk ) 15:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not how that works.  We do not assess whether a book is significant in its field using Amazon reviews , which would be an absolutely ludicrous method.  We assess significance based on whether other subject-matter experts consider the book to be significant, which is what critical academic reviews as linked above substantiate.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 15:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Amazon and Goodreads are unreliable .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 18:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes.  Specifically see WP:AMAZON and WP:GOODREADS .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 12:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Appears to be a WP:NAUTHOR -pass based on my comment above and the academic reviews found by Jpbowen.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 12:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep by virtue of passing WP:AUTHOR : multiple reviews for multiple books.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:AUTHOR as above.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 16:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep given the book reviews.  DFlhb ( talk ) 18:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:AUTHOR .  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: keep