Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Magic of Thinking Big


 * 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 23:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The Magic of Thinking Big

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book by a non-notable author (whose biographical article I have just nominated for deletion also). This article, like the author's article, is purely promotional. The only sources are primary or minor. In a search I could find nothing about this book in Reliable Sources, and I could not verify the claim that it sold over 4 million copies. If others of you are better at searching and come up with evidence that it is notable, the article will require a major trimming and rewrite to get rid of the promotional material and make it encyclopedic; WP:TNT might be preferable. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge with David J. Schwartz (motivational writer) according to my reasoning here. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall)
 * Merge with David J. Schwartz (motivational writer). I'm in agreement with the reasons laid out by Frayae. In addition, I would add that this book was originally published in 1959 and is still on sale today. 4 million copies sold would not be out of line for a book with that staying power. I'm assuming the promotional verbiage comes from newer recruits and the fact that the book was reprinted in 2014. A look at Youtube shows that there are several audio versions of the book posted as well as numerous reviews--that is amazing given the original publishing date. I'm studying and writing articles on publishing history, and would think this book has a place in the pantheon of notable books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaldous1 (talk • contribs)
 * -- I'm confused. Your saying it's notable, but !voting against an article. See WP:NBOOK. --  Green  C  19:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - I removed the unreliable sources and promotional content and added reliable sources. There are plenty more reliable sources by searching Google News. This is widely considered a "classic" self-help book. -- Green  C  20:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has gone through massive changes since being nominated. Forbes putting it on its list of its greatest self-help books, it having over a million confirmed sales, plus the rest, clearly confirm its notability.   D r e a m Focus  21:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, you all have convinced me. I withdraw the nomination. Nice work by User:StrayBolt and User:GreenC. Note that this does not allow for a speedy close of this nomination since there were some !votes for a merge. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep perfectly decent separate article after rewrite. No need to merge. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per GreenC and what Frayae said at the author's AfD. Editions of 1959, 1965 and 1987 (the number of editions is is an indicator of popularity). Simon and Schuster actually claim sales of six million, not four: . James500 (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Since the nomination, the article has been revamped. The nomination was withdrawn. Snowycats (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:04, 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.