Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Start With Why

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. There is clearly a consensus against deletion so I am closing this. The possibility of merging the article can be discussed in talkspace. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Start With Why

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

)

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

Non notable book. There are no major reviews except in out of the way highly specialized sources. A blog post is not a review, even if it's in Forbes. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There may not have been any "major reviews" of the book as
Biogeographist (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I should have checked GScholar myself! (the reason I didn't think of it is that this seemed like a popular work, not an academic work--but I've been learning that GScholar can help in such cases also) Looking furtheri n GS under just the author name, I see that it is cited five times more than his other books. This can be because it is his first book (2009) with the others following 5 or more years later, thus giving it a much better opportunity to be cited, or because it is consider emblematic of his work/ Looing at the works citing it in GS, it seems to be used most often as a single citation without much discussion in reither a general popular book about management, or about management in a special field (often, education), which might imply that it's a business leadership book that a authors in a variety of fields are aware of. (But that's my OR) My opinion is it would be much mroe useful as a redirect to a section of an article, because I think anyone who looks for the book here will also look for the author, and vice versa. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Main reason for keep is the data gathered by User: Biogeographist who wrote: "it is cited 1170 times on
Onion diagram and Onion model since it is a good example of each." In business/sales the power of "why" cannot be understimated when it comes to leadership and motivating people to take action when it comes to salesmanship. Many jobs in the business world are not particularly glamorous/interesting (such as accounting) and many jobs are very hard such as sales which involves receiving a lot of rejecting. So I can certainly why this business is very influential. Maybe the commentator class who writes book reviews don't appreciate the book, but the people who actually need to lead people or show people how to lead certainly appreciate a book like this. One of the most influential and transformational books I read in my life was a book which stressed the power of "Why".Knox490 (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The article cites what appear to be perfectly acceptable book reviews. Haukur (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's unclear whether the scale of citations is sufficient for retention or if it is being made as a viable IAR argument. In either case, a relist would still be warranted, though possibly with different focuses. Given the potential disagreement on that point, a general (if now verbose) relist is warranted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one more highly detailed review: [1] This brings us up to four detailed, independent reviews, even discounting Forbes. Note that
WP:NBOOK only requires two reviews and says nothing to forbid them from being in specialized publications. Coverage of the books's sales also counts in its favor according to NBOOK and we have that too: [2] Haukur (talk) 10:00, 5 September 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.