Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think and Grow Rich: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:11, 28 April 2008

Think and Grow Rich

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - "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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Comment: What "reliable sources discuss it"? "Google search results are not a reliable measure of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep. If something obviously notable, like this work, lacks sourcing in its article, then the proper solution is to source the article, not to delete it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 **'''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)
+*'''Keep'''. If something obviously notable, like this work, lacks sourcing in its article, then the proper solution is to source the article, not to delete it. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)