Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falconer's Lure

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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falconer's Lure

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

Subject of article is a non-notable work of fiction as per WP:BK. I did find the author's obituary in The Times [1] but it does not discuss this book, merely including it in "the other five". No other significant coverage at all that I can find. Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up the article. The lack of news stories online on Google News is unsurprising, this book was was written by Antonia Forest over 50 years ago, after all. But Google Books sheds a different light, there's been a considerable amount of literature written about the author's books. As the International Encyclopedia of Children Fiction states: In the 1960s and 1970s, the "three outstanding writers for girls in this period were Mary K. Harris, Antonia Forest and Elfrida Vipont."--hkr Laozi speak 13:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Forest is certainly notable, yes. But I'm still not seeing anything to suggest that this particular book is notable. The book does not inherit notability just because the author is notable, unless the author is so significant that any work by them merits a separate article, which is not the case here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then that demands a merge, rather than a delete, no?--hkr Laozi speak 14:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any information in the article that meets Wikipedia's standards, then yes. However the article is completely without references (though the plot summary doesn't need them) so that's dubious. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a redirect? Throw me a bone here, I'm just not comfortable with it as a redlink, when there's a main article to link it to with established notability. ;)--hkr Laozi speak 14:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Laozi. Edward321 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was apparently republished in 2002, and I've added a ref to a review of Forest's work mentioning this. Otherwise, per Laozi, and hoping someone else will continue to add stuff. Peridon (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are a lot of book-specific sources out there too, for anyone who has the time. I'll attempt to clean up the article too, in a few hours.--hkr Laozi speak 22:46, 30 October 2010 (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.