Talk:Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives and Evolutionary History

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class because it uses a sub-category of Category:Book stubs on the article page.

If you agree with this assessment, please remove this message.
If you disagree with this assessment, please:

Change the above "class=stub" to "class=start" or another applicable class per Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Assessment#Quality scale;
Remove the stub template from the article.

Untitled

Unless there is anything to say about this text, then this stub should be deleted. William of Aragon (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcrobertson. Peer reviewers: Malblaire, Natewasylk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on suitability of recently added material

Because User:7&6=thirteen apparently can't be bothered to read what they are restoring, nor to follow through to existing discussions, I copy below the comments I have already made on the author's sandbox talkpage, which constitute my reason for reverting the addition of this material. Be so good to actually read and address this before reverting. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mcrobertson, I'm sorry to say that this is not going to work as a standalone article. What you have created here is, in effect, a summary of the content of that book. However, for the book per se to be the subject of an article, it needs to satisfy a number of criteria, the most important of which is that it must "notable" in the Wikipedia sense of the word - i.e., it must have received substantial attention and coverage in indepedent sources. The specific guidelines for book notability are listed here. I'm not seeing these fulfilled for this book, and have therefore nominated the existing fractional article (stub) for deletion. Please feel free to participate in that discussion.

Your text here does nothing to show the book's notability, I'm sorry to say. As such it is unsuitable as a separate Wikipedia article. Since you have concentrated on summarizing the contents, I would advise to rather try to integrate this material into Wikipedia's existing coverage of the evolution of canines; the majority of that seems to be located at Canidae#Evolution. I do suspect, however, that much or all of your material is already covered there (not least because the book is cited as a source twice in that article!). I suggest you check up on this existing stuff and see what additions you can make. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mcrobertson, I have withdrawn the deletion nomination because two in-depth reviews have been found - that is enough to satisfy the notability requirements, and the article is therefore likely to be retained. - However, I'm afraid that does not change the unsuitability of your new material for inclusion. In essence, you are just recreating some material that is already covered at Canidae#Evolution. This is not a unique content of this book, and could be applied to every book on canine evolution; hence it should not feature in an article on any of them. If you can summarize what is particular to this book (i.e., as mentioned in the stub, that it provides especially good coverage of Chinese canids), that would be useful, but merely summarizing content that is already included elsewhere is not. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mcrobertson, since you have elected to completely ignore everything I wrote above, I have had to revert your additions to Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives and Evolutionary History. Let me clarify once again: your material is unsuitable for an article about that book because it is entirely concerned with summarizing information that is not specific to that book. What you have produced is a duplication of material already covered at Canidae#Evolution and various sub- and related pages. What would be needed to expand the article is material that covers content that is unique to that book, and information that is specifically about the book's conception, structure and reception (you can see that the few sentences already there do a little of that). This is not the place for another summary of canidae evolution - we already have those.

(Now please don't just insert your stuff into the article again until this has been discussed and sorted out - that would be WP:Edit warring, and is frowned upon mightily.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion belongs here, not in some random user talk page. You've been around long enough to know that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The restore was process-wonkery, and unnecessary. Anyway, sorted. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]