Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stay Hungry Stay Foolish

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Hungry Stay Foolish

[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)

Book apparently published by the place it's promoting, thus, WP:SELFPUB. Fails WP:BK. Indic-lang original from let's just say someone who publishes a lot. Book title to get Ghits: no connection with Stewart Brand or Steve Jobs, the latter being who most know the quote from. Domain for one ref has its own WP:WPSPAM linkreport. CSD reverted. Anyone feeling up to it might wanna review the linked articles too (which are the only mainspace links to article).

Seems like the title maybe should redir to Whole Earth Catalog but not sure. Can be discussed. --47.155.41.104 (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this AfD is listed on behalf of IP per edit request due to their technical limitations on unable to create on Wikipedia namespace directly. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Journalism, Literature, India, and United States of America. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK.1 / GNG. Review from RS[1]. Another in-depth review in what appears to be a trade publication, [2]. There is substantial other coverage that I haven't checked out after finding 2 reviews. I also see multiple reliable sources (The Hindu, The Statesman) considering it a bestseller, so it may meet NBOOK that way as well. —siro χ o 06:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ no reviews that I can find, after several searches on GScholar, Google, and TWL. I'm not sure what reviews Siroxo's linked above (I'm paywall blocked from even seeing the title on ProQuest), but I haven't been able to find anything. All reviews I've found are from online blogs, and any newspaper discussion of the book is as a minor note while discussing its author. Bestseller lists are not a criterion in NBOOK, so real argument for keeping. AryKun (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With your account age and edit count, use The Wikipedia Library to access ProQuest (and other sources). —siro χ o 00:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, reading WP:NBOOK will explain how bestseller lists contribute to notability. See Note 4 for details —siroχo 01:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I did use TWL, and did not find any reviews. AryKun (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does the top of the ProQuest website say "Access Provided by Wikipedia"? If not you may need to log in to ProQuest again through TWL (For ProQuest, you have to click the "Access Collection" button every week or two, it seems). Otherwise, here's full citations of the two reviews if it helps.
Chakrabarti, S. (2009, Dec 14). Off the beaten track. DNA : Daily News & Analysis Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/off-beaten-track/docview/241796956/se-2

Chakrabarti, D. (2011). Stay hungry stay foolish. IUP Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 8(1), 64-66. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/stay-hungry-foolish/docview/861323198/se-2

—siro χ o 06:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the DNA review seems a bit short, but just about scrapes past GNG with these two. AryKun (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Two reviews are not sufficient. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 03:34, 25 September 2023 (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.