Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Schwartz (motivational writer)


 * 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 keep. Enigmamsg 23:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

David J. Schwartz (motivational writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should have been deleted years ago. The subject fails GNG; the only sources are primary, and in a search I could find no secondary coverage. The article is so promotional it is embarrassing. I was going to remove the most blatant promotional material, but it would have meant blanking the whole article. Let's just delete it instead. We could redirect to the article about his book, but I intend to nominate that for deletion too, for the same reasons. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In further searching I found one actual reference - a scholarship offered in his name at Georgia State University - and in fairness I have added it to the article. My recommendation to delete has not changed. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. With his main work (The Magic of Thinking Big) published in 1959 I doubt much is in Google. I found a Kirkus review from 1983. The scholarship in his name is something to do with his being a professor at that university, sources confirming this are available but are primary to the university. I went behind paywall and found articles such as the general theme in these independent sources is positive, with almost all the sources calling him an 'expert' and 'well known', also describing his book as a 'bestseller' and a 'classic'. I could go further but the most part of sources are people giving short snippets from the book to describe their success. While that's nice, it does not help notability to list hundreds of mentions, and these do clutter the search results. I don't think any of this is very strong, but it should be sufficient to merge the book article into this and have a reasonably well sourced stub. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. A bit of history - The thoughts articulated by the author inspired me to open a wiki page about him, in spite of having limited online references. The intent while creating the skeletal wiki page of Mr. Schwartz was that it would be later appended with more content & references by fellow Wikipedians. However, that wasn't the case and I do agree with user MelamieN regarding the sad state of the page. Instead of deleting it, couldn't it be edited? ; Julius (Talk)
 * Comment To me, the sources that Frayae found are not Reliable Sources as required to meet WP:GNG. They are more the kind of sources that will uncritically praise something and/or repeat whatever the author has said about himself. (If we could find independent confirmation of the claimed 4 million sales, that would certainly help.) We still have virtually no Reliable Sources about him. But I agree that it can be hard to find material on pre-Internet subjects. Anyhow, if the consensus here turns out to be Keep despite the poor sourcing, I will take responsibility for putting the article in shape. That would involve summarizing or removing almost all of the current content, which is almost entirely promotional; adding a few references such as the ones Frayae found; and reducing it to an encyclopedic stub, which is a perfectly acceptable form of Wikipedia article provided it is sourced. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment @ MelanieN alt (talk) That would be helpful. Julius (talk)
 * Julius Do you think I should do it now - so that people can evaluate his notability (or lack of same) without all the distracting puffery? I have usually disliked it when people gut an article and then nominate it for deletion, but since it wouldn't involve removing any SOURCED material maybe it would actually make the discussion easier. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the idea. I pruned it a bit and think that most of whats left is sourcable. But feel free to go further. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good job, Frayae. I think the subject can now be evaluated for notability and (I still insist as required by GNG) whether it has the required references to independent, reliable sources. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have taken the opportunity to add some content from the magic of thinking big article, and a variety of mostly unreliable sources. Theres two claims which keep appearing but I can't verify, one is the oft cited 6 million copies sold figure, and the other is a claim it was a New York Times Bestseller. I don't know how to conclusively prove or disprove either claims so I have both in there. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I loved your edit summary "That's enough unreliable sources for now"! You have worked hard on this article, thank you. --MelanieN alt (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry everyone & @MelanieN alt to join late for the discussion. Noted the page has been summarised perfectly. Thank you all for the edits. :) --Julius (talk)


 * Keep. Qualifies for WP:NACADEMIC Criteria #5. He held the "chair of consumer finance at Georgia Slate College, which is sponsored by the Georgia Consumer Finance Association". StrayBolt (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you quoting from, StrayBolt? There are three references cited for this information but I was unable to use them to confirm it. The article contains one Reliable Source, namely the Georgia State University page about the scholarship in his name, but the only position it reports for him is professor of marketing. You would think, if he had also been chair of a department or head of a sponsored unit of the college, that they would have mentioned that. (In any case I'm not sure that being chair of an independently funded department or subdepartment or whatever it was, is equivalent to holding a named professorship which would qualify him per WP:ACADEMIC.) --MelanieN alt (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Xenia, OH newspaper (it is in the article or search for the quote). Here is a GSU page saying he was "chair of the marketing department". The meritpages.com probably got his middle initial wrong from a typo like from here. Perhaps it doesn't qualify under #5 where in his case it was an organization-named annually(?) sponsored chair, but not an endowed chair. StrayBolt (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Someone has left a message on the talk page. Should we move it to the right place? &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I pinged a reply. Since they said they were unsure, moving does not seem inappropriate (unlike the norm of not changing people's posts). You can delete my reply if you move it. StrayBolt (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:AUTHOR he is notable because of what he created, his book selling over a million copies and getting ample praise. Decades after his book came out, it is still mentioned in business articles like this one, they even quoting him at the end of it.  Had a lasting effect.  Others notable people credit his work to their success.   D r e a m Focus  22:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dream Focus and Frayae. James500 (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable per WP:AUTHOR guidelines. I agree that he has expert quality of work. Snowycats (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2018 (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.