Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life


 * 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 no consensus. Views are split about evenly between keeping and merging; neither of which requires any deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced; non-notable encyclopedia associated with a series of nature documentaries, there is nothing to suggest that this book in particular is independently notable enough to warrant its own article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Reviewed in The Quarterly Review of Biology, Palaeontologica Electronica and the Canadian Review of Materials. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have checked more thoroughly before deeming this book "non-notable". I agree that this article could be reworked and expanded with reliable sources, then (I notice you've already begun doing so). Don't know if I can "retract" a deletion request but I now also support keeping the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The book easily satisfies this, as indicated by reviews noted above, and therefore is notable enough to have a stand alone article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, in addition to the reviews above, also reviewed by New Scientist (listed here), Science Teacher (review here), Science Scope (listed here), Resource Links (listed here). Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per reviews found. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge - into the article about the series. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge it's a companion book to the series, so it doesn't make any sense to split it off into a stand-alone article  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Notability (books) "A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."
 * I mean if you're just gonna go off of that, I can say that about a lot of random books, like The Hunters or the Hunted?: An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy   but I think we can agree that it'd be odd to have a completely separate article for this book. The point is, just because someone talked about it doesn't mean it deserves a separate article. These are just guidelines, and it was not intended to apply to every possible scenario foreseeable or otherwise (which is why we have WP:IGNOREALLRULES), so at the end of the day, you have to go with the most practical. In this case, a small discussion on the Walking with Dinosaurs article as is done right now is best, as I don't see how you could have a full-fledged article unless you add a lot of padding and page-filler   User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 00:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that looks like a notable book, so I have gone ahead and created an article for it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge into the Walking With... article. The book was written as a companion to that series (I have both watched the series and have/read the book), and I don't see how it can be adequately treated separately from it.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This clearly meets WP:NBOOK. Accompanies notable programs too. Old-time classic by now, and I wouldn't mind having a copy either. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, if Walking with... is reformatted to be more than just a list, than maybe a merge would be appropriate. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:44, 25 October 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.