Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cracking the Coding Interview

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 merge‎ to Gayle Laakmann McDowell. Courcelles (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cracking the Coding Interview

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

)

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

No notability shown. Among the sources is listed 1 is just a passing mention, 2-3-4 are primary sources, and 5-6-7 are here to show that it's "has been cited in peer review papers", each source not about the book itself. I didn't find any serious reviews of the books, and so I think that the article should be deleted or maybe merged into the article about its author. Artem.G (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~I am not familiar with the notability requirements for books, so I won't !vote,~~ but will say that this article and the article on the book's author, Gayle Laakmann McDowell, were both created by editor Duncan.Hull who was in my opinion really trying to promote this individual by using LOTS of NON-Reliable and/or NON-Independent sources to create and glamify both articles. Both myself and editor Grayfell removed much of that content/sources.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This debate should be about the notability of the book, not the notability of the author. @Avatar317: The fact that this book been through six editions and translated into seven languages helps establish notability. The less reliable and less independent sources have already been removed from both this article and the article about its author. Personally, I have used this book teaching undergraduate students in Computer Science and I know that it has been used in many other Universities around the world too. I'm not trying to promote the author or the book, as I do not benefit from doing either. I'm just trying to document facts. Duncan.Hull (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that the author is not notable. The fact that it was cited in several publications doesn't make the book notable, by this logic my paper published in a peer-reviewed journal that got cited 4 times is also notable. The fact that it's useful is also weak, and that you used it in a classroom too - not every textbook is notable enough that there should be a wikipedia article about it. Artem.G (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that newly added sources are not reliable (like freecodecamp - either user-generated or even promotional), or just wrong like google scholar - if you make the search stricter, "cracking the coding interview" [1], it would return nothing, there is no review of this book in peer-reviewed journals. Artem.G (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was also going to make the point that Artem.G made: "not every textbook is notable enough that there should be a Wikipedia article about it." For the record, I know of several VERY widely used introductory calculus, biology, & physics textbooks that do NOT have Wikipedia articles. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a weak argument for deleting the article about a notable book. Lots of notable books don't have pages, but you have to start somewhere. If they are VERY widely used, why not write articles about them rather than having debates like this one? Duncan.Hull (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly "notable" in your opinion differs from "notable" in my opinion and maybe also from Wikipedia's standards of notability. For the record, I would likely be classified as a "deletionist", maybe you are the opposite. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 19:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
Walt Yoder (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I expect quite a few academics will have a copy of this book because Google were giving out free copies to academic partners at events they ran pre-COVID (I got one in 2019). I'm not aware of any GNG-ish coverage of it that hasn't already been mentioned. Adam Sampson (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The detail is notable for Wikipedia. CastJared (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can you show, with sources, why is it notable? There are no reviews of the book or any discussions in reliable sources, so how is it notable? Artem.G (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 13 sources. CastJared (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the article? Check these sources yourself, or read my comments above. Artem.G (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with
WP:NBOOK; the sources that aren't primary or unreliable blog posts and Youtube videos are links to ACM articles which mention the book in passing. As someone in software, I can confirm that the book is pretty well-known and commonly suggested for interview prep, but so was "How Would You Move Mount Fuji?" and whatever came before that and so on; a business book being widely read in an industry doesn't necessarily translate to notability. As for The fact that this book been through six editions and translated into seven languages helps establish notability—no it doesn't. A large number of editions published is a relatively common thing for textbooks. I'm not necessarily convinced the author is notable on her own either, but so long as the page is there seems like a valid ATD. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge - Now that I have carefully read
WP:NBOOK, this book does NOT meet: "1) The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3]" - The two sources which talk about the author and her book primarily cover other topics than the book. Those being the ZDnet source: Women in Tech: Gayle Laakmann McDowell excels beyond the stereotypes - After stints as a software engineer at Google, Microsoft and Apple, McDowell was bored working for large companies. So she started CareerCup.com and the HackerRank source - Gayle Laakmann McDowell Deconstructs the Engineering Interview Process ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:57, 2 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.