Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolf Hunting

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Hunting

[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)

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Redirecting to author would be misleading as there is also the article Wolf hunting. Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose, the author is of some renown and the book in question is part of an 8 book contiguous series, most of which are themselves documented as wikipedia articles. If this book is deleted it would break a set that combined is itself IMO worthy of documentation on wikipedia. Shentino (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boleyn: That is more of an argument for a disambiguation page, not for deletion of Jane Lindskold's book. Shentino (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Shentino, you are going to have to write better articles. I just looked at Wolf's Search, and it's sad. Start by collecting references to reliable secondary sources; no hang-on tag was going to save that draft (and that's already an overstatement), and the same applies here. Delete. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ ~~Delete~~ - The best coverage I was able to find in a reliable source was this short review from Publishers Weekly. Which is not enough at all to pass WP:NBOOK. If further reviews in reliable sources can't be found, then I'd advocate a redirect to Jane Lindskold#Bibliography. Rorshacma (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the nominators argument against using this as a redirect to the author's page, and I agree. If anything, this article title should instead be used as a Redirect to Wolf hunting after the current article is deleted. If someone wanted to create a new page titled something like Wolf Hunting (novel) to use as a redirect to Jane Lindskold#Bibliography instead, that would probably work. Rorshacma (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but Rename) - Not all of the reviews found below are great, I don't think, but enough of them are decent enough to let this pass WP:NBOOK at this point. I would still advocate it being moved to Wolf Hunting (novel), though, so the current title can be used as a redirect to Wolf hunting. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly no reliable sources, so non-notable. AryKun (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assuming enough can be found to justify a series page, I'd recommend a merge into that. If I have the energy to do it, I will try to make it but if anyone else wants to, definitely feel free. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and started here, any help would be appreciated. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to Firekeeper Saga, but after renaming the article. I've finished the basics for the series page, enough to where it could pass muster. It's fairly bare bones, so anyone who wants to expand feel free to do so. I think that if wanted, a redirect using the proposed disambiguated title would be reasonable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Selective merge and Redirect to Firekeeper Saga~~.4meter4 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Firekeeper Saga whatever can be salvaged. Otherwise Delete. If a text is not worthy of inclusion here due to lack of independent notability we do not move it elsewhere; we delete it. -The Gnome (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Changing suggestion; see below. -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lindskold, Jane. "Fifth wolf novel continues with wit, magic and fascination". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The book review notes: "In Wolf Hunting, the fifth of Jane Lindskold's novels in this series, she takes on another mythic exploration of human expectation seen through the eyes of a woman reared by wolves -- Royal wolves -- larger and language-using, of whom Blind Seer is her peer, companion and ally. ... To create a stand-alone book for readers new to the series, Lindskold seamlessly weaves the threads back in as the story unfolds without the obligatory unwieldy synopsis. And even so, having read the previous four books, I am very grateful for the glossary of characters with more than 250 entries (including place-names) to help keep the threads straight. ... The characters, setting and quest meld for a long, satisfying read -- either as an introduction to Firekeeper's struggle to make sense of human society and values or as a happily awaited continuation of the rich complexity of the Wolf Series."
2. Valance, Marsha (April 2006). "Wolf Hunting". Voice of Youth Advocates. Vol. 29, no. 1. ISSN 0160-4201.
  The book review notes: "In this well-crafted conclusion to her Firekeeper saga, Lindskold explores the philosophical question, "What is love?" ... Although readers would benefit from a previous knowledge of this involved saga, this novel is a worthy end to the multivolume hero's journey. Firekeeper has matured in mind and body throughout this fantasy epic, gaining understanding of her complex world's operation. Lindskold does a solid job of world-building, offering thought-provoking questions to underpin this well-paced chronicle of Firekeeper's adventures that is recommended for all high school libraries where fantasy is popular."
3. Lazarowitz, Steve (2007). "Wolf Hunting". SF Site. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The book review notes: "Wolf Hunting is an exceptional book from a talented author. Not fast paced by any means, Ms. Lindskold delves into the character's minds and hearts, sharing with us their strengths, weaknesses, hopes and fears. If you like innovative character-driven fantasy, then get yourself a copy of Wolf Hunting. The magic is only just beginning."
4. "Wolf Hunting". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 253, no. 2. 2006-01-09. ISSN 0000-0019. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The book review notes: "In the thrilling fifth installment of Lindskold's Firekeeper fantasy saga ... With a smaller cast of characters and more interaction between animals, this volume is more tightly focussed than earlier entries in the series. The intriguing plot makes for a quick and enjoyable read."
5. Luedtke, Paula (2006-03-01). "Wolf Hunting". Booklist. Vol. 102, no. 13. p. 76. ISSN 0006-7385.
  The book review notes: "Orphaned and raised by wolves, Firekeeper is at home in the wild as well as closer to her wolf companion, Blind Seer, than she ever could be to a human. Now one of the sentient Wise Beasts requires their help. The jaguar Truth's gift of prophecy has driven her mad and separated her from her spirit, but a voice in her head urges her to bring Firekeeper to open a door and thereby be made whole again."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wolf Hunting to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The book has received five reviews: The Santa Fe New Mexican, Voice of Youth Advocates, SF Site, Publishers Weekly, and Booklist.
Cunard (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing suggestion to Keep, on account of sources tracked down by Cunard, as above, which I missed in my search. -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BOOKCRIT with the sources Cunard mentioned. I also found reviews on SF Site and SF Revu, which appear to be reputable in the scifi community. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Passes WP:BOOKCRIT. I struck my merge vote above.4meter4 (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cunard sourcing is sufficient, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to sources found by Cunard. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:41, 14 September 2021 (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.