Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Field Guide To Dinosaurs: The Essential Handbook For Travelers In The Mesozoic


 * 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. No prejudice to recreate if more sources along the lines of what DGG found are added to confirm notability. I love the book and all (some bad illustrations, in my opinion) but what is linked is not enough to meet the GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A Field Guide To Dinosaurs: The Essential Handbook For Travelers In The Mesozoic

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable book. Article consists of lists of featured species and supposed "inaccuracies" without citing any sources Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep'  Expand and give sources for t he errors from the reviews. . Very well known book, in over a thousand libraries, and translated into German, Dutch, Spanish, French, & Japanese. . Reviewed in New Scientist and elsewhere-- see WorldCat and Ghogle books.  DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep while i dont think this book is very notable, it is notable enough, esp. for its being a primarily speculative work from a scientist. i would strongly recommend that the entire table of contents of dinosaurs listed be removed, along with all the other commentary, unless it can be sourced. the exact details within the book are not themselves notable (unless widely discussed), and too much of the contents borders on copyvio.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced speculation/criticism and a listdump of no importance 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * i agree, the list and the criticism sections are nonnotable, and will likely never be notable. still, i think the book itself is notable. it would probably help if someone would just blank that content, but thats also not recommended during afds, is it?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OWNSITE. This appears to be completely derived from the subject itself. Dew Kane (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. Listcruft (sorry, no other word for it) taken directly from a published work that, at a fragmentary best, just duplicates information on Mesozoic lifeforms with sourced articles here. An article purely referencing the book on its merits as per DGG and Mercury (above) would need to be started afresh IMO.Plutonium27 (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.