Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think (book)

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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think (book) (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)

I was going to PROD it, but it's already been PRODded. Has been ill-sourced OR for ten years now, and the refs have gone from one review to two. Nothing in a WP:BEFORE. Article has been in this state for ten years; no reasonable prospects of evidencing notability. I'd be delighted to be shown wrong, but ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Two reviews in reliable sources is enough to show "significant coverage", no? I mean it's never going to be much more than a stub, but that by itself isn't a fatal issue. FOARP (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both reviews are 404 - are there verifiable copies anywhere? - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed that for you. [1] [2]Vexations (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    cheers! - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:BOOKCRIT #1: [3], [4], [5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment', also mentioned in Are We Free? Psychology and Free Will - "It has also drawn a stern retort by Malcolm LeGault", Project Decisions: The Art and Science - "Blink or ThinK?". Coolabahapple (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2018 (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.