Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miracle Dog: How Quentin Survived the Gas Chamber to Speak for Animals on Death Row


 * 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, although the title may need to be trimmed. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Miracle Dog: How Quentin Survived the Gas Chamber to Speak for Animals on Death Row

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable book that fails WP:BOOK. Contested CSD (author requested deletion, but third editor who worked on article disagrees). Failed PROD by same editor who claims "I disagree with the PROD. The book, its author and its subject have been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources." This, however, is false. The subjects of the book may possibly be notable as THEY have been covered in multiple sources. The book itself has not and is not notable. Almost all of the content in the article was copied from the back of the book and other websites. The one National Geographic reference given only mentions the book in a single line, which does not constitute significant coverage. Just as every book written about presidents is not notable soley because its subject is, neither is this book. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The book has been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, thereby satisfying WP:N. The dog survived 15 minutes in the carbon monoxide gas chamber at the St. Louis dog pound, then was adopted by Grim, who wrote the book and used the dog as a counterargument against gassing at pounds. As a result, the St. Louis pound ended the practice of gassing animals. The book has had several reviews in well known sources. The man and dog (and book) have had substantial coverage in National Geographic News. Grim and Quentin have appeared on MSNBC, Animal Planet, CBS Early Show,  CBS News, CNN,  Access Hollywood, and Today Show, and the magazines that they were featured in are Guideposts, People Magazine, and Forbes, according to a review  at BarnesandNoble.com . It seems misleading to claim that this coverage does not lend notability to the book, on the ground that it is about the man and the dog, but not about the book about the dog by the man, which he was promoting on a book tour when he gained the coverage. The coverage in the sources listed could be used to improve the article. See also Albuquerque Journal, May 11, 2005  and May 1 2005 , St. Louis Post Dispatch August 6, 2006  , The America's Intelligence Wire, May 2, 2006  , Carolina Newswire March 23 2007  ,Wichita Eagle May 1, 2005  ,  UPI NewsTrack June 5 2005 and other coverage at Google News  .Edison (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the BOOK has not. The man and dog have, not the book. Also, repeating the copyvio statements that were removed from teh article here does not make them any less copyvio. They were copied from the back of the book with no actual sources to show it was the book, and not the man and dog, that were the focus of the appearances. The book itself is not notable. The notability of the man and/or dog is another whole issue. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The news stories I have added are about the book. The dog itself is not notable if not the subject of the book. The author might be notable independently of the book. A list of TV appearances and magazine coverage does not appear to be a copyvio of the Barnes and Noble review which you removed from the article. I have randomized the order in which the appearances and magazines are listed; does that alleviate your copyvio worries? Edison (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Randomizing it doesn't make it any less copied nearly word for word from the back of the book. And no, all of those news stories are not about the book. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentThe links are there to be clicked on and read. I see discussion of the book, or of the fact that the coverage is of a book tour, which is about the book. Additional coverage per Google News has too much of the story behind paywall to be sure it is about the book and not primarily about the author. Edison (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Link #19 above clearly shows many news articles where the book is referenced in the title of the story.--Michael WhiteT&middot;C 12:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Presuming you meant link 9? Checking the stories themselves, not just the title, shows that most are again primarily about the man, with the book mentioned in passing, not primarily about the book. -- Collectonian  (talk contribs) 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentAnother view is that if the article says Mr. Grim and the dog are on a book tour, describes the book, then talks about their experiences which are related in the book, then the article counts toward notability of the book. The interview is about the subjects of the book, but also covers the content of the book. Edison (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with Edison's observation. — Athaenara  ✉  21:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. But plagiarism issue might need to be addressed (and I'm not sure that has happened). -- Quartermaster (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The claimed plaigarism or copyvio is a list of 12 or so magazine articles and TV appearances in the Barnes and Noble website, apparently copied by them from the book jacket. Is a list of things copyrightable? How about if paraphrased or rearranged? In any event the list could lead to useful content for improving the article, and tends to support notability. Edison (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is because it isn't just a list, but also the phrasing. Rearranging it doesn't eliminate that, particularly when the list is NOT useful as it has no real context and no actual source. Its just a part of the book's overall blurb. You need to actually go find the REAL references for each of those appearances, check to see if the book was the majority topic, and then it can be useful. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Very little here to show the book is notable. On the other hand, these references would be a good start for an article on the person.  So maybe my opinion is really Redirect to not yet written article? gnfnrf (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The incident is notable, not the book. I don't understand why someone would create an article about a book before there's an article about the book's subject. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's because I'm a newbie that didn't get an adopter until yesterday. Schuym1 (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was a bit too negative there. I sincerely hope that this discussion doesn't dissuade you from contributing to Wikipedia. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It won't stop me from contributing. Schuym1 (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1


 * I'm confused. Does this other AfD have anything to do with this?  What are the Miracle dogs?  Where am i?  No, wait.  But really, are they related? Protonk (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Miracle Dogs is a movie (I believe from Animal Planet) about "magic" dogs that cure diseases. Miracle Dogs Too is the sequel. The only relation in the articles is that they were all made by the same editor. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Ah. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, rewrite and rename If not other article exists about this incident. If one does, then merge.  The incident seems notable, the book doesn't.  It was a good faith creation of a page about the book--the user creating it didn't know the rules about notability (I'm assuming).  So let's make the article about the dog and the euthanasia shelters (or kill shelters, but that's probably POV). Protonk (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentPlease provide a link to the policy or guideline which which says there must be an article about the subject or subjects of a book before there is an article about the book. Has this been the general practice in Wikipedia up to this date? I expect there have been many notable books about somewhat less notable subjects. One example is In cold blood with the article created 3 April 2003 about the murder of a farmer and his family (none of whom have articles) by two criminals, whose own articles were created 25 March 2006  and . The author, Truman Capote, had his article created before the book article, on 8 December 2002.  Consider another true crime story, The Onion Field. The article about the book was created 9 May 2005 . There is no article about the killers or the victims. The book's author had an article created earlier, 20 May 2004 . How many examples would you like of book article which lack subject articles, or whose subjects had articles created long after the book articles? I think it will be found that book article without or before subject article is common in animal books or crime books. If the consensus is to delete the article about this book, then whatever notability accrues from the numerous articles about the dog/man/book should probably be directed toward creating an article about the author.  Edison (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2008 (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.