Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Computer Contradictionary Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Computer_Contradictionary

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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Computer Contradictionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod appeared disputed. No evidence of notability that I can find. Fails WP:GNG Nouniquenames 14:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep or Merge into author's page Stan Kelly-Bootle. No need to be so drastic. - Altenmann >t 15:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From [1]: Favorable reviews of The Computer Contradictionary (The MIT Press, 1995) have appeared in:

Nature, Vol 376, August 31st, 1995

UNIX Review - Editorial August 1995 (Andrew Binstock)

WORD - The Literary Magazine, Premier Edition, June 1995 (Nomi Eve)

The New York Times, July 18th, 1995 (L. R. Shannon)

Windows Developer's Journal, October 1995 (Ron Burk)

;login - The Usenix Association Newsletter, June 1995 (Peter H. Salus)

Reader's Digest, February 1996 (they quote a piece from the NY Times review)

ACM Book Reviews, March 1996

• Keep I added 2 more references; it's got enough coverage to meet notability guidelines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep simply because it passes the threshold for notability and is verified as such by its references. L A Times is good enough for anyone. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Cavarrone (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2012 (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.