Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogface (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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dogface (book)

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

As far as I can tell, this isn't a notable book. There are several incidental references to it, but nothing that I think meets WP:NBOOK for substance or depth. Mikeblas (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a few mentions of this here and there, but nothing that I'd really consider to be anything more than a trivial mention. ([1]) There are things that briefly mention the book in regards to something else (like a "buy this for Christmas" list) but nothing that really focuses on the book itself. In other words, while the Amazon page tries to use these brief mentions like they're reviews, they're really not reviews in the way Wikipedia would need them to be. If anyone else can find something I'm willing to change my argument, but offhand I just don't see the coverage. If the author had an article I'd recommend a redirect, but she doesn't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph [2]E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't meet book notability criteria, which requires at least two non trivial mentions. The Telegraph article linked above is not exactly reviewing the book, IMHO, as it is basically not saying anything more than "Here's a pretty doggy picture book". The author doesn't seem to be notable either. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, search yields seller sites, some blog sites, all trivial mentions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:19, 10 May 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.