Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psycho-Cybernetics


 * 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. Fram (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Psycho-Cybernetics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete promotional non-notable self-help book. None of the references (publishers site and blog) meet WP:RS and WP:V (Declined PROD) Mayalld (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – Found several reviews from the New York Times, Time Magazine, San Francisco Chronicle and Dallas Morning News that speak specifically to the concept as shown here  which includes mention of both the book and author.  I say that is pretty notable.   Shoessss |  Chat  15:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - are they reviews of this book, or just passing mentions of the "and the pop psych Psycho-Cybernetics concept" sort? There aren't any such reviews linked to in the article. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – That is why I provided them! So you could base Your opinion on some additional information other than based on others opinion.  Me personally, found that notability was established.   Shoessss |  Chat  16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I tried with Google and found many reviews from different third parties. Pretty notable indeed. -- Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  15:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - obscure pop-psych oldie by non-notable author. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - The book statisfies WP:N and WP:V. Author Maxwell Maltz is notable and has a long standing article about him. --Pmedema (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep links provided by Shoesss pass WP:N. Sethie (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Very notable book that has been around for a long time and is considered a major work in the field. The fact it's an "obscure oldie" (to borrow one editor's words) is not valid criteria for deletion. 23skidoo (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - if the book is notable, where are the links in the article to citations of the work as notable? "obscure" is another word for non-notable; if it's notable, source the claim of notability in the article. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - added one to article to establish Notability. Will add others shortly. To  Orange Mike, as an editor you are more than free to add additional cites and refernces,  I provided them above, if you just take your mouse and left click on the link I provided, rather than just stamping your feet, it would be a great help. 19:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)  Shoessss |  Chat  19:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Well known concept notable for over 40 years, Numerous refs in reliable sources per Google Scholar satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.Biophys (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2008 (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.