Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Smile in the Mind


 * 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 no consensus. Thanks to Tokyogirl79's editing, the article is now at least less promotional.  Sandstein  14:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A Smile in the Mind

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not particularly distinguished book; the article is promotional, depending upon selective review quotes and a great deal of name dropping, linked to the 18 out of 300 contributors who are notable.  DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just looking at the sourcing in the article, it appears that the only usable source is the review from the Sydney Morning Herald. Creative Review is a primary source (since it's a piece written by the book's authors) and the publishers' pages are certainly primary as well. That a primary source is trying to back up a claim that it's an essential book doesn't help it seem less promotional either. Offhand I'd endorse giving it a dose of WP:TNT because it's so horribly promotional that it cannot be salvaged in its current state. I'm also blocking the editor since a quick search shows that they share the same name as a marketing company. I'd recommend a look at all of their created pages to see if they're as equally spammy as this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've speedied The Partners (brand consultancy) as sheer spam since it was more of the same here and had some concerns of notability because it had the same puffy claims backed up by some fairly dodgy sourcing. They also created Jérémie Pauzié, which needs to be cleaned for spam and also have far better sourcing, since it relies on equally poor sourcing. The guy might be notable, but Brandstrategy did the guy (and whomever hired him) a huge disservice by how promotional he made the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm finding some sourcing in Highbeam from Step Inside Design and Design Week, but these look like they're offhand mentions. My Highbeam has expired so I'm unable to verify how it's mentioned. Offhand this is really all I'm finding, mentions here and there. I'm going to try my college's library next to see what I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've stubbified everything. I'm not seeing huge evidence to show that it was as direly influential as the article suggested, but it does appear to be fairly well thought of in the design world. My school's database brought up evidence of possible reviews from places like Graphis, Baseline, and Communication Arts, but my library doesn't have access to these articles so I can't tell how in-depth they are or if they're even reviews. They likely are, but I can only find the most basic of outlines that states that something was written but doesn't state exactly what. I added two sources to the article, which brings this up to three sources now, which would technically be enough to pass NBOOK. I just wish that we had stronger sourcing besides this and the brief mentions here and there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep even if not confidently as compared to others because the listed sources and improvements are convincingly enough. SwisterTwister   talk  05:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, now reflected in the article thanks to improvements made by . Also, although it does not appear in any bestseller lists, the smh article  does call it "bestselling" - "A viral object in itself, A Smile in the Mind has been a bestselling product since it was published in 1996. Reprinted 13 times, with sales of more than 100,000 copies (impressive for a design book), it has now been updated for the first time in 20 years." Coolabahapple (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2016 (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.