- 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The Richest Man in Babylon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is an extensive summary of a 1926 book without any demonstration of notability. ubiquity (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How are the sources that I added to the article, and the many more available from the Google Scholar search linked above, not a demonstration of notability? If you object to the extensive summary of the book then edit it out, but this is very obviously notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are actually a fairly solid list of sources that could be used to write an article about this book. But right now, we don't have an article about this book. We have an article-length treatment of the contents of this book, in violation of WP:PLOT. I'm generally an advocate of "AFD isn't for cleanup". But the lead is essentially the only policy-compliant element of this article as it stands. If that's the best we can do, then we maybe ought to put this down and try again, although I suspect that an interested editor could do something better here in short order either way. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Why on Earth should we get rid of the lead? Yes, please remove the lengthy summary of the contents of the book if you don't like it, but if this article was written with only the lead section we wouldn't delete it, so why now delete the lead section as well as the junk? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead may be policy-compliant, but it's hardly valuable content. It says nothing about why the book is important. It gives the author, a brief description of the contents, and a publication date. Yes, that's cited to reliable sources, but that's not even a credible claim of importance! Now, as it happens, I'm fairly convinced that this book is notable. But nothing of the article that we have here is what does the convincing. If someone wants to WP:HEY this, I'm happy to retain it. If not... I don't think I'm likely to explicitly advocate for deletion here, but that might not be a bad thing, either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is draft space an option? Because we seriously cannot ignore the fact this article is basically plot summary and not mainspace-ready.White Siddiqah (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Blocked sock. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. Even if this book is notable, most of the current content of the article, which consists largely of plot summary, has got to go. I agree with White Siddiqah that we should consider moving the page to draft space. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Massive WP:BEFORE fail by Nom. Kudos to Phil Bridger for reducing text to a very brief, informative stub.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. This book is regularly ranked in the top financial advice books of all time (I have added refs from the WSJ, and Forbes, and others). 90 years later, it is still in print. There is a large amount of GNG on this book; the biggest problem is navigating through the overwhelming amount of links on google from all the "wealth management" websites who recommend this book, to get to proper WP:RS. I have added some modern references from good quality RS confirming its notability, and I could add 10 times more. Would make a great GA/FA article for an editor, as even the individual parables in the book haven their own WP:RS. The huge amount of references in google to this book shows that reader appetite for such an article is there? Britishfinance (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Couldn't help myself, and as well as the refs, also added a section on the books' advice/key lessons. Britishfinance (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In addition to the many sources about the book (passing WP:NBOOK#1), a targeted search of .edu sites finds that the book is the subject of instruction at many US universities (passing WP:NBOOK#4). It is notable, and as Britishfinance points out, there's no question that enough sourcing is available to support a standalone article. Remaining concerns can be addressed through editing, which does not require AfD intervention. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:GNG. Article is improved with reliable sources to show subject is notable. Lubbad85 (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. What can I say? It's a real article now, with references and everything. ubiquity (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2019 (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.