Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Success Principles


 * 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 redirect to Jack Canfield. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The Success Principles

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to WP:GNG for this book, and would suggest that we restore the redirect back to its notable author, Jack Canfield. Searching online, the book appears to be a hit with unreliable Forbes contributors, but I was not able to find significant coverage. Here's my assessment of the citations provided in the article:


 * Q&A interview with the author, note that the main focus of the interview is Canfield's other work and only Canfield actually mentions The Success Principles
 * The author describes Canfield as his "good friend", not independent
 * List of 12 books with only a short paragraph devoted to The Success Principles, and the source looks to be of dubious reliability to boot
 * Arguably the best source cited, although the unmitigated praise leaves me a little dubious of its reliability (e.g. a revised and updated edition of this masterpiece has been released in 2015 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of its first publication. The book’s practical and inspiring words have certainly helped thousands of its readers to see success in a different light.). The off-the-beaten path source (an English language Cambodian paper for a book published in the US?) also raises some concerns signed,Rosguill talk 17:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 17:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 17:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 18:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Rosguill. Akronowner (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, n.b. that I'm suggesting to redirect the article, not delete it. You may want to change either your !vote (if you agree with me) or your rationale (if you don't) accordingly. signed,Rosguill talk 18:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect - as per Rosguill's suggestion. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NBOOK.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the author as suggested. I'm ok with redirects where applicable. The subject fails notability and should not have a stand alone article. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 19:01, 15 January 2021 (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.