Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet of the Dogs


 * 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. Secret account 01:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Planet of the Dogs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Essentially spam for some non-notable children's books. Claims to have been reviewed but none of the links are to a review. &mdash; RHaworth 13:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's simply due to contributor inexperience. A simple google search enabled me to find the bookdads review quite easily. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No sign of notability. ~YellowFives 16:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book series. Joe Chill (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete What worries me about this entry is how the publisher appears to be created especially for this particular series and how they don't appear to have published anything else. Combined with the statement "The publishers, Barking Planet Productions, hold a copyright for all the books in the Planet of the Dogs series and hold a trademark for the name/title Planet of the Dogs." and the use of catalogs as references, I suspect this is an attempt at self-promotion from someone who has no clue about the publishing industry. 1) Copyright belongs to the author rather than the publisher unless they did a work for hire. The publisher gets certain rights, but with trustworthy ones copyright isn't one of them. 2) Catalogs list all published books. While they prove the book exists, they do nothing to establish notability. Reviews can, in my opinion be reasonable sources, assuming the reviewer is well-known as an authority in their field. Unfortunately, I have no clue about who these reviewers are. I'll withdraw my vote if the publisher can be established to be independent from the author or when I can get some indication of sales numbers. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not much to add to the above reasons, Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  11:48, 5 December 2009 (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.