Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter


 * 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The result was   Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *poke* 00:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A pure puff-piece, consisting of almost nothing but promotional text directly from the publisher. The book fails to meet book-specific notability guidelines at Notability_(books). HCA (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not commenting on notability, but I've removed the puffery, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Based on the original layout of the article, this would have been a pretty easy speedy candidate as sheer promotional material. However some serious hard digging brought up just enough coverage to merit a keep. It's sort of a weak keep, but this just manages to squeak by notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh... While it does squeak by, how much squeaking should be allowed?  Especially since publishers will go out of their way to get reviews in papers & magazines for a book as a form of promotion?  Technically, it does have more than a solitary review, but it's also not exactly widely reviewed (you specifically said these took "serious hard digging" to unearth), nor reviewed at any time beyond the few months immediately prior to and after release (i.e. when the publisher was sending out free copies to every potential reviewer).  If this still meets notability guidelines, I'm cool with that, but it seems to be a rather low bar. HCA (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is, but at this point in time there isn't any hard setting as far as how many reviews are too few. I've seen articles pass with far less than than this. There isn't even a firm consensus on whether or not trade reviews count as trivial or in-depth sources. If it had only received one newspaper article I'd have said that it wouldn't have passed, but this has received four of them in various places that are considered to be reliable, not including the two trade reviews. If you want to start up a conversation on WP:BOOK about redefining the guidelines for WP:NBOOK, feel free- I think it's about time for us to start looking at this again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   13:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm fine just letting it stay now that the promotional crap has been expunged; this is pretty far outside my expertise anyway, and I only happened across the page by sheer luck. HCA (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you- getting stuff like that changed is a pain in the neck. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, now that it's been fixed. HCA (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2013 (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.