Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Striking Thoughts


 * 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 delete. Michig (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Striking Thoughts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Spammy article about non-notable book. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This book is actually has huge value in philosophy and literature fields. Please do not judge based on awards or popularity. And it can be improved a lot.  — Preceding Killerlxt comment added by Killerlxt (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theopolisme   ( talk )  11:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete - There is not enough source material independent of Bruce Lee's book to provide content to the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article itself mostly is made up of a Wikipedian's selection of passages from the book. I found a few sources, such as The Business Insider, but there's just is not enough from which to write a Wikipedia article. The closer can redirect to Bruce Lee.-- Jreferee (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. If kept, there needs to be significant improvement and removal of promotional material. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 21:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to improve the article on those grounds. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 21:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What remains of the article is largely direct quotes from the book. Is it a copyright violation to have a mass of brief quotes like that? If not, how about moving the quotations to Wikiquote as WP:NOT recommends? ("If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.") I didn't find any reviews in the Google news archive. —  rybec   11:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Non-free content has stricter requirements that copyright and WP:QUOTEFARM goes into some detail as well. Either way, the article cannot overuse non free quotes any more than it can overuse non free images. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and deleted the Quotes section. — rybec   20:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Advertisement.  Gamaliel (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Only 150 holdings in worldCat. This is trivial for a popular culture topic like this by an author as famous in their field as Lee. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 25 March 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.