Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 48 Laws of Power

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. JForget 22:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 48 Laws of Power

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

This article has no assertion of notability, has only one source (which appears to be a blog), and consists almost completely of a list that, I assume, is essentially the table of contents. The page for the author of this book is almost exclusively about this book, and other than the intro, is just an "In popular culture" section about this book. Nburden ^(T) 06:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The list is just the table of contents. Nburden ^(T) 06:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NYPost considers it a best seller [1]; USA today has a review [2]; similar LA Times [3], & quite a lot else in Google News -- they';re right there in the heading to the AfD, and in earlier years. Even for what appears to be junk, it's advisable (& ought to be necessary) to follow WP:BEFORE. The reason it only has a toc is because it used to be an overlong inappropriate detailed summary of the book & that got reduced sharply. But the reviews at least can and should be added. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Notability is established with the reviews and NY times bestseller. Cleaning up the article is an editting issue. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This volum has become a true classic and has started to influence social and business discussions. The article is a bit of a stub, but maybe over time it will become something. Just give it a bit more time and don't try to be holier than the pope by citing deletion policies. 156.109.18.2 (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: This article was started 9 October, 2005. That's nine days short of four years. How long should we leave things, hoping that they'll be expanded? I'm not holier than the pope (and I never even cited any deletion policies, just general article requirements), but I think that, if after four years, all we have managed is the TOC, then maybe that's all we're going to get. Nburden ^(T) 00:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is not just a table of contents. If one were to strip that out, one would still have a stub which is a perfectly good starting point for an article about the book. There is no deadline. The reality is that older literature won't get as much attention from editors as current popular culture topics but that doesn't mean that someone won't come around to add to the article. -- Whpq (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2009 (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.