Talk:Miracle Dog

Spokesperson?

Where are the references to prove that this dog can speak? (other than barking). It would be better described as a "symbol" or "reminder" of unfortunate/abused animals. Edison (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed it. Schuym1 (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1

Notable

I added sources, I added categories, I added a stub, and I reworded it, but it's still not good enough. I thought that it was notable, but I guess that I was wrong. What was wrong with the Barnes and Noble link? Schuym1 (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1

Categorizing and article and marking it as a stub has nothing to do with notability. That's part of the basics of any article. See [[Wikipedia:Notability (books)] to see what makes a book notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. For the B&N link, it is a product link that adds nothing to the article. See WP:EL to learn more about appropriate and inappropriate external links. I've also left you a welcome message on your talk page. It includes links to some great info on Wikipedia basics that may find useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that it has nothing to do with notability. I'm not going to create articles. There's to much stuff to remember. Each Wikipedia help article has info, which leads to another article (or more articles), and it seems like it's never ending. It's just like remembering an entire book. Schuym1 (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1

I'll try the adopt a user thing Schuym1 (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1

Alrighty and good luck. It is quite daunting at first, but once you do get the hang of it, it becomes almost second nature :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you start a discussion, among other members, and see what they think about this page getting deleted? Schuym1 (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1

I added articles/reviews from National Geographic News and The Seattle Times. I removed the "unreferenced" and "notability" tags. It could certainly be taken to WP:AFD if someone is sure no references exist to create a quality article. If transcripts of the TV appearances could be found that would furnish additional sources for improving the article. Amazon lists it 299,115 in best sellers, #38 in Books > Health, Mind & Body > Death & Grief > Pet Loss and #76 in Books > Outdoors & Nature > Ecology > Animal Rights. How can one determine what its high water mark was in sales, or its total sales to date, which might be indices of notability? Amazon lists additionally a review in Midwest Book Review, August 2005, which could be referenced if it could be found beyond the capsule version on Amazon.Edison (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The television appearances, however, do not establish the books notability, but that of Randy Grim and Quentin themselves. The book must be notable on its own, not just because it covers a notable person. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why not change the name to Randy Grim and Quentin or just Randy Grim, and reword it more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schuym1 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it is already established as an article about the book. Randy Grim seems able to meet WP:BIO to maybe have his own article, but still not seeing any notability for the actual book at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A new article could be created for Randy Grim and have this article rederict to his articleSchuym1 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1

Only if it is confirmed he is indeed notable by Wikipedia standards. He may or may not be. This article, however, would not be changed to a redirect. It must either meet notability, or be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If Randy Grim has stuff that WP:BIO considers notable, then why would it seem like it's notable. You said that it seems like he could have his own article. If it has stuff that WP:Bio says is notable, then why would it seem like it, it should be a for sure thing. If it's not a for sure thing, then WP:Bio is kind of worthless Schuym1 (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)schuy,1

I said he MAY. At quick glance, it seems possible, however it first must be checked in reliable sources to see if he actually does meet the WP:BIO criteria. Remember, he is a living person, so we must be especially vigilant about only using reliable sources and including verifiable information. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I bet if I put in reliable sources, it would still be deleted because there will be some other thing that breaks one of the many rules. Schuym1 (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1

• That is probably correct. Have you consulted WP:BK to find out about the notability criteria for books? This should be taken to AfD, or simply prodded perhaps if there is no disagreement. Eusebeus (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a prod and I'm done creating articles. I'm also tired of waiting for someone to "adopt" me so I took the template off of my profile. Schuym1 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1

If, as the creator and only major contributer, feel it should be deleted, you can request it be CSDed by putting {{db-g7}} at the top of the article. For the adoption, have you tried asking editors who have listed themselves as willing to adopt a user? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked an adopter, but I got impatient so I took it off. I'll try asking someone else. Schuym1 (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1

Don't get too discouraged. Remember, it may take a few days or even a week to find someone. There are often far more folks wanting adoption than there are available to adopt, so have to be patient. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Schuym1 is not the only major contributor. As another major contributor, I disagree with the PROD. Once others have edited an article, the creator no longer "owns" is for purposes of speedy deletion. Saying that the National Geographic reference is about the man and the dog rather than the book by the man about the man and the dog seems the height of sophistry. Take it to AFD if you wish it deleted. Moving it to an article about the dog or about Mr. Grim are other alternatives. The deleted list of TV show appearances seem other possible reliable sources to support notability. Edison (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't need to be moved, that would not be appropriate as they are different articles. You are not a major contributer, you added a single source that only mentions the book in ONE line, and a review quote. Every book about Hillary Clinton or George Bush is not inherently notable just because of the subject. Nor is this one. Absolutely nothing has been done to show the BOOK is notable by WP:BOOK. The NG "ref" doesn't count as it is not covering the book in significant detail, but Grim and the dog. The deleted TV show appearances have absolutely nothing to do with the dog, nor is it sourced. It doesn't matter, however, as it violates WP:COPYVIO. Schuym1 didn't realize it was against Wikipedia policy to just copy stuff from the back of the book (or from DVD covers) in his initial edits. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I got the TV show info from a website and reworded it. I don't have the dang book Schuym1 (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)schuym

I did not copy anything in this article from another site. I reworded everything. Schuym1 (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1

Well, the site you got it from was just putting up the back of the book. Also, the rewording was not a significant difference as I very quickly found the site you used. It violates WP:COPYVIO and was not appropriate. Sorry if I presumed you had the book, since you'd done it on the Miracle Dog articles, I figured you'd done the same here. Nevertheless, it violates copyrights and can not be used.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that such a collection of TV show appearances and magazine article mentions constitutes a copyvio. What is the pertinent part of the guidelines? Reliably documented TV appearances as part of the book promotion or newspaper articles about book "signings" by the dog and by the author would seem to help make the case for notability of the book, and that is the reason I am reluctant for all mention of them to be removed from the article as if they never happened. In the AFD I have cited several newspaper articles about the book tour, which might also be incorporated in the article. I would prefer to see one article rather than an article about the book, an article about the author, and an article about the dog. An article about the author in which the book and the dog are discussed would be one way to avoid proliferation of articles. AnmaFinotera, do you have the book, or where have you seen the cover that you say the list of appearances is from? With a little time in the public library, it should be plssible to use Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature to find and cite the magazine articles. They in turn might verify the TV appearances. I don't know a good way to search TV show sites to see lists of guests from a couple of years ago. Edison (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Edison's observations now, but I'm not sure who is right. These multiple discussions (Two user pages, this talk page, and the deletion page) have made me even more confused of what should happen in a situation like this. Schuym1 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't knwo who I agree with. Schuym1 (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miracle Dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201084458/http://bookideas.com/reviews/index.cfm?fuseaction=displayReview&id=2406 to http://www.bookideas.com/reviews/index.cfm?fuseaction=displayReview&id=2406

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)