Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Computers Can't Do

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 {{sofixit}}, keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Computers Can't Do

What Computers Can't Do (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article currently reads like a book report, and it contains a lot of text that appears to be at least arguably copyright violation. Delete and start over if necessary. --Nlu (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as copyright infringement. TJ Spyke 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - needs a total rewrite for length and clarity, but notable. OR: I Googled several complete sentences and no hits turned up. - WeniWidiWiki 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Unless copyright infringement can be shown, I don't think it should be assumed. It seems to be worked on almost every day and the main contributor left a "This article or section is currently in the middle of an expansion or major revamping" tag on the article. Why would it be deleted now? Bbagot 06:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep unless a copyvio is proven. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the book is very notable. The article itself should definitely be cleaned up to read more like an encyclopedia article, but not deleted. --Delirium 08:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The article sounds like the person just copied parts of the book word-for-word. I can't check myself at the moment since I don't have the book. If someone else can confirm this, then the article would be speedied. TJ Spyke 08:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seminal work that needs an article. The summary, though, is ... pretty nerdy. As far as I can tell from Google Books (which blanks large chunks) this really is a conceptual summary, section by section. I'm pretty sure that isn't the best way to write an encyclopedia article about a book (it's more like a Cliff's Notes approach). I suggest excising it and rewriting it all in a handful of paragraphs. --Dhartung | Talk 09:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe that since it's free and clear, a transwiki of the book summary to Wikisource would be one way to salvage this editor's obviously diligent work. --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - OMG - How many assumptions can be cast without any knowledge!? I am actively writing the article. The book is 1. VERY noteworthy, 2. Difficult to decipher, as it is written in a very polemical style. I am summarizing the book, section by section, as a prelude to any better work that can be done later. If anyone thinks they can just sum up the work in one swoop, let them go ahead! I have read the book several times, and without first summarizing it diligently and systematically, it would be impossible to glean the actual argument from the forest of polemical debates which seem to permeate the book.

I particularly resent being accused of copyright violation! Where? This is a summary, my own work, with minor quotes which are totally "fair use". Samfreed 10:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please give us an indication as to how many quotes there are. That will be a big determining factor as to whether it is copyright violation or fair use. --Nlu (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, most of the quotes are from places where Dreyfus himself is quoting others, though not all. This is definitely fair use. Samfreed 14:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Samfreed, please take the questions about the article in good faith, as this is not personal. You obviously have access to the book, others do not. The sheer volume of text in the article, and the way it is structured like a table of contents, should make any editor want to take a second look. In part this is because few articles about books in Wikipedia look anything like this -- that is, they are articles about the book, not articles summarizing the book. I would like you to consider that writing how the book was received and what sorts of criticism and influence it has had are more encyclopedic things to include than a blow-by-blow analysis of the arguments, particularly since that comes perilously close to original research (and thereby jeopardizes the existence of the article itself). --Dhartung | Talk 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Not to quibble, but how notable is the book? I see two assertions the book is notable, with no evidence of such being given. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How are we to give evidence that something is notable? I have yet to meet anyone who is seriously interested in Philosophy of AI who does not either love or hate this book. (I am busy completing my MA in Cognitive Science) Samfreed 14:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability gives some guidelines. "Secondary source availability and depth of coverage, not popularity or fame, establishes notability." for example. Is this book mentioned, preferably prominently, in two or more non-trivial secondary sources? NYT book review, for example? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Would [1] count for you as evidence for notability? Samfreed 14:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

no, they are inclusive not selective. Right idea, though. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you seem a much more experienced wikipedian than myself, so teach me. This is Dreyfus's most important work in the field of AI criticism. Everyone agrees that he is an important thinker in the field (see [2]) - So how do I "justify" the central work of a central thinker? Philosophy of AI is not an easy-to-grasp subject, and this feels like justifying Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, or Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming" - like, I feel, anyone who knows anything about the field would agree.... Samfreed 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly more than two or so; it has thousands of citations, and at least hundreds of prominent ones. Here is Google Scholar's list of 264 citations to the book. And here is a review of the book in AI Magazine by John McCarthy. --Delirium 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are as well 614 Google Books citations. This is not a minor work. --Dhartung | Talk 18:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and tag for Cleanup - notability established, however article reads like a (lengthly) book report. Suggest editor(s) remove "work in progress" part to subpage, edit massively, citing sources, prior to attempting to integrate with article, or simply remove all that and add in little tiny well sourced bits. Should be article about book, with brief summary, not condensed version of book. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the article. The book seems notable to me; it meets the "heard of it before I read a Wikipedia article about it" test, and I'm fairly sure it's been discussed by Daniel Dennett. On the other hand, I suspect that portions of the text here might find a more worthwhile home in the philosophy of artificial intelligence article. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep very notable book. Needs proper referencing and an overhaul, though. Quick advice to the author, you can work on articles in a subpage of your user page and release them when they are done in the future. - Anas ^Talk? 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very notable book (see the statistics provided above by User:Delirium and User:Dhartung). However, it does need to be cleaned up and improved so that it is not a summary of the book (possibly transwiki to WikiSource but without deleting the article). Also, "appears to be at least arguably copyright violation" is no reason for deletion unless the copyright violation can be proven. At the least, the nom should have raised the issue on the talk page or contacted the primary author of the article. I could not find evidence of either action being taken. -- Black Falcon 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Week Keep A read the full article and alot of the book now. The author is paraprasing and is definatly not directly copying. The article needs a focus more on the book itself, and not on preaching the books message--155.144.251.120 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your efforts to understand are appreciated. I am writing this article - and as you, who read the book, can see - to even give a summary of what Dreyfus is trying to say, I need to first clean out an awful lot of polemics. This is work-in-progress. As I said above, if anyone can do a better job, go ahead, this is the wikipedia.... Samfreed 06:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, looks like a notable enough book - but the article still needs work. But that's a cleanup issue. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The book looks notable; however, the summary needs to be shortened immensely to the summary length at The Well of Loneliness or Oroonoko. ShadowHalo 02:32, 25 February 2007 (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.