Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon : While this book is used in a couple of wikipedia articles as a source, there is nothing to distinguish it as more noteworthy than other sources on pit bull-related pages PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 16:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions .  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 16:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 16:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is well sourced from reliable sources or if that is not possible merge into Bronwen Dickey .  Dwanyewest ( talk ) 16:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You both created and extensively worked on Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon and the Bronwen Dickey Wikipedia pages.  Knowing you put together (greater than 50% of) both of these pages, and ignored pretty every other book included on the pit bull page is a bit odd.  What was the original reason for creation?  Sure, maybe we could merge into Bronwen_Dickey page?  It is currently not sourced from reliable sources.  About half of the sources I've read seem to actually support the claims they make.  e.g. the claim of "7 years of research" I was able to verify 2, but the third made no mention.  The reviews also need work.  As I mention, it appears they were copied directly from Amazon.com, but the citations were taken from different URLs.  One supported the claims.  One (from NPR) clearly did not.  Two were unverifiable due to paywalls.  I think this page may be "notable" by WP:BK standards which are notoriously relaxed when it comes to reviews.  But that depends entirely on unverified reviews at this point.  Perhaps if someone fixed those to point to real reviews we could reach that standard?  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 15:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:GNG per cites like CSM, NYT and WaPo.  Which seems to satisfy WP:BKCRIT #1 as well, bonus.  I'd add WSJ to the argument for keep, but can't read it.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 17:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Replied elsewhere but I think this is the only argument for keeping this book.  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 15:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another user DMed me some links.  I'll see if I can do some more verification of these sources to see which of these review citations are legitimate.  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 17:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Made one more change to sources to add an archive link, and I believe we've completed verification of all our sources, and we now have a way to view them that isn't behind a paywall!  I finally removed the review from NPR.  It previously linked to an article where the review text existed nowhere in it, and I wasn't able to find another source for that quote, so it is likely made up.  The quote is included on the Amazon.com page for the book and attributed to NPR there, but NPR doesn't have any source for it.  Also we have enough good sources I don't think it will be an issue.  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 17:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly.   Authored by a scholar, meets the criteria and required sourcing, and a Google search of  the title brings up about 8,370,000 results (0.53 seconds).  Atsme 💬 📧 19:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Scholar" is stretching it a bit much.  The author has an MFA, a writing degree.  As far as I she doesn't have actual scientific background or expertise in dogs aside from buying two pit bulls during writing process.  Whether the process of adopting pit bulls qualifies the author as a "dog scholar" is questionable, and I haven't seen any evidence of scholarly background on this subject from this author.  As an aside, that is not one of the reason for notability.  Nor is "number of results found on google" The only reason this book might reach notability standards (by Wikipedia definitions) is that there are two book reviews, which is currently the biggest issue with this page.  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 15:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Clearly meets the criteria of WP:NBOOK and the WP:GNG due to the multiple reviews in reliable sources.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 20:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree.  "reliable" is stretching it (see my earlier notes), but it is possible that with some cleanup this topic could avoid deletion.  I think one of the hardest thing will be finding independent sources that are correct.  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 15:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep needs some work but clearly meets WP:NBOOK .  Archrogue ( talk ) 17:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just wanted to say thank you to everybody for your comments so far.  It's looking like this page will stay because it's had at least two book reviews per WP:BK .  Keep the comments rolling in though!  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 17:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: keep