Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America


 * 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. I see a consensus to retain this content in some form. Further discussion on merging can be had on the article talk page if desired. T. Canens (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable book published by a nobody publisher, probably self-published. The books is mentioned a lot 'in passing' when otherwise discussing its author, or a film, or animal rights, or no kill movement, but the book itself is not notable per Notability (books). Of the two current citations, one seems to be a book review for The Bark magazine, the other is a publicist/press release sort of article (which doesn't count towards notability). A WP:BEFORE search finds several more mentions-in-passing and a few more publicist/press release type articles. The publisher, Almaden Books, does not appear in online searches related to any other book except this and another by the same author (All American Vegan, 2011). Their old/defunct website appears in Wayback Machine from 2011 to 2013 with minimal information (a few paragraphs), showing only "Los Angeles CA" as an address. A search with California Secretary of State shows no corporation or LLC with that name, and a check for fictitious business names in Los Angeles County, Alameda County (location of author's facilities), and Santa Clara County (place with other Almadens) turned up nothing. I might conclude from this that the "publisher" is the author himself. Normal Op (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to Nathan Winograd. This article says almost literally nothing. Only the sfgate ref is worth saving, but that's as much about the author as the book, and the book has whatever notability it does because of the author. Station1 (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure what went wrong with that WP:BEFORE search, but I quickly turned up a number of in-depth reviews: by Foreword Reviews, the Christian Science Monitor (whatever one might think about those guys), and the Journal for Critical Animal Studies. That's not Times coverage but it's good enough. Nontrivial treatment embedded in other works, such as this monograph, is even easier to come by; the book has made some waves. I mean, it wouldn't be a calamity if this was treated in the article on the author rather than in its own article, but the coverage and material for a standalone are actually there. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Christian Science Monitor is a passing mention, not a review. ForeWord Reviews is (and was in 2007) a fee-for-review service for indie and self-published books. Normal Op (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops - not sure what I was looking at w/ CSM. Yeah, that's useless. Struck. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Re Foreword: the fee-for-review stuff is a special item, the "Clarion reviews" - and this is not one of these; it's a plain send-us-your-book-and-we'll-review-it item (the distinction is made quite clear on the page you linked ). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge as per User:Station1. Does not meet WP:SUSTAINED under WP:NOTABILITY. A book is published, some reviews are written at that time, and that is the end of it. Just because something exists does not mean that it requires an article on Wikipedia.  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 10:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as meets WP:NBOOK with several reviews, including an extensive review in The Bark and a shorter but standard review in Library Journal. Questioning its lack of sustained coverage strikes me as rather goofy. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as meeting NBOOK due to reviews pointed out above by DiamondRemley39.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:SUSTAINED is not applicable to reviews. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2020 (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.