Talk:Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach

Cleaning up unnecessary comments

I have removed the following text from the main article:

this is an advertisement of the book. the publisher,author stand to gain financially from it. 
i am surprised to see it in the exalted list of wiki articles.  gopal chippalkatti

This belongs to the discussion page, not on the main article. I belive doing so would constitute vandalism? Xathria 07:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Article is a review

This article is a review and should be removed from Wikipedia. Ceros 05:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

seems ok now - Rod57 (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Third Edition

A third edition of the book is planned. There was a design competition for the front page recently. I have not read any comments from any of the authors about any publish date. 83.252.230.175 (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There are now preview chapters available for the third edition at Pearson 83.252.235.237 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC).

This article (advertisement) is not notable

This article reads like an advertisement for a book. Furthermore, few of the sources seem to me to really be trustworthy -- literally all but one of the sources is either from the book's *website*, from the book's authors' institution, or else is directly selling the book or reporting its contents. That remaining source is an unsubstantiated blog post. To my understanding of WP:RS, none of the above are considered reliable.

With this in mind, I at least currently see no evidence that there is "significant coverage" from "reliable" "independent" sources, per WP:N. On a more subjective note (I'm not sure which guideline to point to here), if this really is 'the most popular' AI textbook, that may be notable -- but surely an edition list, topics listing, description of updates and *link to code database*, is content that's more appropriate to, say, Amazon, or Google Books?

As such, I'm adding a Notability tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.131.42 (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I added a few citations (not from Berkeley) to support the claim that this is the standard textbook. It also has >48,000 citations on Google Scholar as of January 2022, but citation numbers can change quickly, so I haven't included that. TuringMachines (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)