Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives and Evolutionary History

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. Two good reviews available & strong library holdings. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives and Evolutionary History

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm finding one professional review of this [1]; other than that, appears to be a solid but unexceptional textbook that has not received the coverage required for books to be considered notable. (There's a U of Alabama WikiEd project in the works, in the context of which one editor appears to wish to expand this article. However, that's not going to roll in the form they envision; they don't deal with the book per se at all, just summarize the contents. I'm leaving them an explanation on their talk page.) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i am surprised there are not more reviews available, especially as it is held in over 1000 libraries, i did find this review (really just a summary of the book) from Choice (which would make 2 reviews including the one found by the nom) but haven't found any others. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I should have checked the library holdings. That's probably a good argument for keeping... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Meets WP:TBK by being held in over 1000 libraries and per GScholar being cited by 145 scholarly works. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added Lewis' review as a reference. I also added another suitable reference (a review by Yule). Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice - I think that does it. I'll withdraw. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:13, 21 November 2018 (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.