Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Made to Stick

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 speedy keep. withddrawing, bu perhaps Chris troutman will userify it as he suggested. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Made to Stick

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially advertising. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I read this book years ago and I can re-work this article. Closing admin, please put this in my userspace if the consensus says delete. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added references including brief quotes from three reviews of the book. It meets our notability guideline for books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said it isn't notable -- I think that it is; what I have said is that it's promotional. But if CT wants to userify it, I have no objection. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When an article about a notable topic contains promotional language, the best solution is to rewrite the article so that it complies with the neutral point of view, not to delete the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it meets our WP:GNG inclusion criteria and it isn't unambiguously promotional, although I think it includes some unnecessary details that could be removed. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since notability isn't questioned, and perceived issues can be addressed by editing, I don't know why this needed to come to AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The very first news hit I got was this Forbes Piece "Chip and Dan Heath first came to national prominence with their blockbuster title, Made to Stick, which made the New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestseller lists and had a 24-month run on the BusinessWeek list as well." Does anyone have an actual policy based rationale for deletion? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Here are the other best/top lists it was on: [1] (but you'll need to Google to get the original cites). -- Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Not inherently promotional, or so in a manner that requires deletion of the entire page. Also keep per the rationales of Cullen, Anachronist and Michig above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. I note the book was published in January 2007, the article done in April 07, before most of the current refs are dated. But it's all 10 years ago now, & the book was apparently a big seller, so I see no problem. I don't even see that there was much promotional language in the version before the nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's "essentially advertising" then re-write it to make it less so. Clearly no WP:BEFORE was done here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a well-known book in its field and now well-cited. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.