Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think and Grow Rich


 * 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 Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Think and Grow Rich

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NN book. Related AFD at Think and Grow Rich!: The Original Version, Restored and Revised. Toddst1 (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Very notable book, one of the first on the scene of the motivational-thinking craze. The fact that it's still in print after so many decades is a testament that it's notable.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment deleted half the article as it was copy and pasted from http://www.amazon.com/review/R13S2L7Q9PKXS8 .--Otterathome (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge: Chronic repository of 'pseudoinformation' of doubtful (non-WP:RS and/or WP:COPYVIO) origin (aggrevated by difficulty to police this due to lack of inline citations). No WP:RSs indicating that it meets WP:NOTE or WP:BK. HrafnTalkStalk 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How on earth doesn't it meet WP:BOOK? It's one of the most popular and successful books of all time, selling more than 60 million copies and is still in print after more than 70 years.  If this doesn't meet WP:BOOK, nothing does. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "How on Earth"? Here's how: (i) we have no WP:RS cited for it "selling more than 60 million copies" (ii) WP:BK (not WP:BOOK, which is a wikiproject) has no sales-based criteria for notability. HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BK, a book that's the subject of multiple independent non-trivial published works of all kinds is notable. A quick Google Books search reveals this to be the case here. Klausness (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the Google books hits are to books Hill himself (co-)wrote, so are hardly "independent". Further, the criteria cited above goes on to say "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." From a quick browse of the hits listed, I didn't see any that were likely to contain any "critical commentary" at all. HrafnTalkStalk 18:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merging per Ttiotsw's rationale below would be an acceptable option. HrafnTalkStalk 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep after appropriate stubbing. Generally speaking, any book from the 1930s that's still in print probably meets reasonable criteria for notability.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * strong Keep- it doesn't matter if it's 'pseudoinformation,' reliable sources discuss it. 448 mentions in google news archive when combined with the author's name  . Merkin's  mum 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: What "reliable sources discuss it"? "Google search results are not a reliable measure of notability. HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you looked at my link- that is a google news search, ie. a search of archives of newspapers, not just websites. If you click on it you can see the hundreds of mentions of this book in newspapers. Merkin's  mum 12:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly notable, based on how widely it appears to be discussed and cited, no matter what you (or I, for that matter) think of the contents. Klausness (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. If something obviously notable, like this work, lacks sourcing in its article, then the proper solution is to source the article, not to delete it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, book of long established notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep I think the original nomination was highly mistaken. I forgive you.  ;-)  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: we seem to have a large number of bare assertions of notability from editors who (with the sole exception of KleenupKrew) have not bothered to substantiate these assertions by actually coming up with WP:RSs (the explicit basis of both WP:NOTE & WP:BK) for this article. If every editor who opined with such confidence that this topic is obviously notable would actually provide (in the article) a single inline-citation to an independent RS for a single fact, the notability of this article would be iron-clad. HrafnTalkStalk 07:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add another; most studies of Werner Erhard and 'est' cite Think and Grow Rich as a significant influence on him. It is also often mentioned in the business press as an influence on a number of entrepreneurs, and sometimes as one of the two books that started the whole motivational, self help book craze.  I can look for more specific references as time permits.  I'm very much the deletionist on marginal books but this one easily passes the notability bar.  Just needs more cites and expansion. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Napoleon_Hill (which ALSO has no references I might add )!. That way all this unreferenced stuff stays in one place and the author article is the right place. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a plan actually- I'm not sure if we need both of these. Merkin's</b> <b style="color:#FF1493;">mum</b> 12:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree on merging. Both should be kept.  Think and Grow Rich was by far Hill's best-selling book, but there were numerous others, nor was writing his only accomplishment.  If all he did was write the book, I'd agree, but it isn't so. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, highly notable book judging from sales figures quoted. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. An all-time classic- started the whole financial-inspiration-positive-thinking genre. One of the most notable self-help books of the twentieth century (no, that's not an exaggeration); cited in hundreds of books.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:34, 30 April 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.