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 delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Dynamic Mind (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Falis WP:NBOOK, I see no indication of major coverage in secondary sources. Despite the claims of the article, google scholar shows it to have been cited 6 times. [1] Dbrodbeck ( talk) 19:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I am removing a bunch 'references' that don't mention the book. Every one I have checked so far is bogus. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 21:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I agree with deletion. The article violates WP:BKTS, WP:DUE and WP:Primary, at a minimum. I checked and it's not available at the library of congress. It's also not nearly as commonly cited as the article implies. And the author's credentials aren't relevant to the subject matter in the book, so I have no reason to believe the claim that it, "was considered an early pioneering effort that explained ... neuroplasticity before its concepts were widely recognized." Especially since the citation for that sentence is a primary source-- only the 2nd authors name is listed in the citation, but when I googled it, I found that the book's author was also the primary author of that impact study. Permstrump ( talk) 14:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I disagree, but for a different reason because I do agree with Drodbeck & Permstrump. With all due respect, the article's writer has mischaracterized the book. I read it some 8 or 9 years ago and its not a science book, as the article seems to suggest (although it has some science in it). It's a "self-help" book like many on Wikipedia and its primary focus was the use of mnemonics in learning. There is certainly no discussion of any neuroplasticity pioneering efforts, or the like, else I believe that I would have caught it. I am not saying that the article's writer misstated the book intentionally, but am inclined to think they never read it. Permstrump was right in removing any unsupported material and references. If I can locate my old copy, I will give a go at it later in the week. I recommend placing the article in a proper self-help category and adding a "stub-tag" for improvement. If nothing changes, it can always be removed. Neverland1 ( talk) 22:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete The article in its current form is an advertisement, and as far as I can tell no suitable sources are available to enable a proper article to be written. In spite of the tone of the article there is no evidence that this book has received significant attention. Looie496 ( talk) 14:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• no mentions in other books or papers.. not sure how popular otherwise it is.. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.10.191 ( talk) 01:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- fails WP:NBOOK. This is one article in a large WP:WALLEDGARDEN created by SPA accounts to promote Warren H. Chaney. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Changed my mind. Tried to repair the article and did find additional references but not enough to justify spending more time on the piece or for that matter, leaving it up. Neverland1 ( talk) 02:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC). reply
• Delete as non-notable puffery part of promotional initiative. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 20:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- per WP:NBOOK and the WP:SELFPROMOTION aspects of the article as well. MarnetteD| Talk 20:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NBOOK, WP:SELFPROMOTION, WP:WALLEDGARDEN, and WP:SERIOUSLY?. Followed the thread here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America: A Call to Greatness. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. I can find nothing to show that this book is notable enough for an entry. It does seem to exist and has been listed as a source in a few books, but nowhere near enough to really establish notability. It also doesn't help that this has issues with puffery and promotion, and that other articles on Chaney have had issues with outright deception. I've searched some college databases and JSTOR, but found nothing there as well. This could probably be snow closed at this point, I think. I'd do it myself except that I've opened an AfD for another Chaney related article here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I don't know if it even matters at this point, but I have doubts that this book even exists. Looking into the book for this AfD was the first thing that tipped me off to the elaborate online presence Chaney has created for himself since 2011, so I spent a lot of time going through all of the citations one-by-one of the ones that were left after OP for this AfD had already deleted a lot. I looked up every single citation. If the source existed (which it often did not), I searched the text and read exactly what was said about Chaney/Dynamic Mind. Of the small number of references that actually existed and mentioned Dynamic Mind, they were mainly self-published academic theses that echoed the same 1-2 sentences and listed the same page numbers in their reference lists. The only source this didn't apply to was an abstract on Research Gate, a social media website that's supposed to be for researchers and academics to share open source articles and data. Oh and by the way, that abstract had Chaney listed at the primary author, but only the second author had been listed in the reference list on Wikipedia. Therefore, I'm pretty certain the only references to Dynamic Mind that didn't come from Chaney (or if it's not him personally, one of his kids), came from lazy students who were quoting each other without going back to the primary source. Permstrump ( talk) 01:24, 10 December 2015 (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.