Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think and Grow Rich: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
**How on earth doesn't it meet [[WP:BOOK]]? It's one of the most popular and successful books of all time, selling more than 60 million copies and is still in print after more than 70 years. If this doesn't meet [[WP:BOOK]], nothing does. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 16:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
**How on earth doesn't it meet [[WP:BOOK]]? It's one of the most popular and successful books of all time, selling more than 60 million copies and is still in print after more than 70 years. If this doesn't meet [[WP:BOOK]], nothing does. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 16:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
***"How on Earth"? Here's how: (i) we have no [[WP:RS]] cited for it "selling more than 60 million copies" (ii) [[WP:BK]] (''not'' [[WP:BOOK]], which is a wikiproject) has no sales-based criteria for notability. <font face="Antiqua, serif">[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub></font> 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
***"How on Earth"? Here's how: (i) we have no [[WP:RS]] cited for it "selling more than 60 million copies" (ii) [[WP:BK]] (''not'' [[WP:BOOK]], which is a wikiproject) has no sales-based criteria for notability. <font face="Antiqua, serif">[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub></font> 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
****According to [[WP:BK]], a book that's the subject of multiple independent non-trivial published works of all kinds is notable. A quick Google Books search reveals this to be the case here. [[User:Klausness|Klausness]] ([[User talk:Klausness|talk]]) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' after appropriate stubbing. Generally speaking, any book from the 1930s that's still in print probably meets reasonable criteria for notability. - [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] ([[User talk:Ihcoyc|talk]]) 16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' after appropriate stubbing. Generally speaking, any book from the 1930s that's still in print probably meets reasonable criteria for notability. - [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] ([[User talk:Ihcoyc|talk]]) 16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''strong Keep'''- it doesn't matter if it's 'pseudoinformation,' reliable sources discuss it. 448 mentions in google news archive when combined with the author's name [http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=%22think+and+grow+rich%22+napoleon+hill&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=uk&ie=UTF-8] . [[User:Merkinsmum|<b><font color="#FF1493">Merkin's]]</font></b> [[User talk:Merkinsmum|<b><font color="#FF1493">mum]]</font></b> 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
*'''strong Keep'''- it doesn't matter if it's 'pseudoinformation,' reliable sources discuss it. 448 mentions in google news archive when combined with the author's name [http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=%22think+and+grow+rich%22+napoleon+hill&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=uk&ie=UTF-8] . [[User:Merkinsmum|<b><font color="#FF1493">Merkin's]]</font></b> [[User talk:Merkinsmum|<b><font color="#FF1493">mum]]</font></b> 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
**'''Comment:''' ''What'' "reliable sources discuss it"? "Google search results are not a reliable measure of notability. <font face="Antiqua, serif">[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub></font> 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
**'''Comment:''' ''What'' "reliable sources discuss it"? "Google search results are not a reliable measure of notability. <font face="Antiqua, serif">[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub></font> 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''. Clearly notable, based on how widely it appears to be discussed and cited, no matter what you (or I, for that matter) think of the contents. [[User:Klausness|Klausness]] ([[User talk:Klausness|talk]]) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:06, 28 April 2008
- Think and Grow Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
WP:NN book. Related AFD at Think and Grow Rich!: The Original Version, Restored and Revised. Toddst1 (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Very notable book, one of the first on the scene of the motivational-thinking craze. The fact that it's still in print after so many decades is a testament that it's notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment deleted half the article as it was copy and pasted from http://www.amazon.com/review/R13S2L7Q9PKXS8 .--Otterathome (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Chronic repository of 'pseudoinformation' of doubtful (non-WP:RS and/or WP:COPYVIO) origin (aggrevated by difficulty to police this due to lack of inline citations). No WP:RSs indicating that it meets WP:NOTE or WP:BK. HrafnTalkStalk 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- How on earth doesn't it meet WP:BOOK? It's one of the most popular and successful books of all time, selling more than 60 million copies and is still in print after more than 70 years. If this doesn't meet WP:BOOK, nothing does. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- "How on Earth"? Here's how: (i) we have no WP:RS cited for it "selling more than 60 million copies" (ii) WP:BK (not WP:BOOK, which is a wikiproject) has no sales-based criteria for notability. HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- According to WP:BK, a book that's the subject of multiple independent non-trivial published works of all kinds is notable. A quick Google Books search reveals this to be the case here. Klausness (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- "How on Earth"? Here's how: (i) we have no WP:RS cited for it "selling more than 60 million copies" (ii) WP:BK (not WP:BOOK, which is a wikiproject) has no sales-based criteria for notability. HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- How on earth doesn't it meet WP:BOOK? It's one of the most popular and successful books of all time, selling more than 60 million copies and is still in print after more than 70 years. If this doesn't meet WP:BOOK, nothing does. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep after appropriate stubbing. Generally speaking, any book from the 1930s that's still in print probably meets reasonable criteria for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- strong Keep- it doesn't matter if it's 'pseudoinformation,' reliable sources discuss it. 448 mentions in google news archive when combined with the author's name [1] . Merkin's mum 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: What "reliable sources discuss it"? "Google search results are not a reliable measure of notability. HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly notable, based on how widely it appears to be discussed and cited, no matter what you (or I, for that matter) think of the contents. Klausness (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)