Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fearsome Creatures of the Lumberwoods, With a Few Desert and Mountain Beasts


 * 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. Merge discussions (and they may well be appropriate) may occur outside of this Afd. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fearsome Creatures of the Lumberwoods, With a Few Desert and Mountain Beasts

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Though an old book, I do not think this particular book is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia based on WP:BK. It's great as a source, but what makes this book encyclopedic? The author of this Wikipedia page was involved in the "rediscovery" and "redistribution" of the book electronically, and for that they should be thanked. However, I'm of the opinion that an encyclopedia article it does not deserve. Use it as a source for fearsome critters, but an entire article devoted to a book so obscure that no copies could be located for a number of years? Also, no notable reviews, awards, etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the statement that no copies could be located is hogwash, apparently meant to advertise the reprint. the orig ed. is in 35 university libraries DGG (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability of book not established. It would be better to use it as a source for articles on the various creatures.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - looking around, I'm fairly sure we can establish notability. This book's discussion of that book rises above trivial.  Probably trivial, Nontrivial but not independent, Marginally nontrivial, somewhat nontrivial.  Although ads to a sensible inclusion. Wily D  14:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The fact that an obscure book was once published, then was so obscure it was hard to find, then someone found a copy and put it on the internet, does not show it is so notable as to deserve a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:N and particularly fails WP:BK. The references provided by WilyD do not quite show satisfaction of WP:BK. Edison (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not "obscure" - it's pretty widely cited, considering. There just aren't very many sources that discuss it in depth, rather than merely cite information from it.  We all see to agree it's around the edge of notability in that sense.  But there's no call to misrepresent it. Wily D  18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any book which required "an exhaustive, years-long search" to find a copy is obscure by definition. Also this article seems spammy and promotional. Edison (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That particular claim (about the "years-long search") is dubious. See DGG's comment above. Zagalejo^^^ 00:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on balance, the encyclopedia is better served by having this article, as the book is frequently referred to, and its nature should be explained. DGG (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Per WilyD and DGG. Though the book probably doesn't meet WP:BK to the letter, there are enough references to it to suggest that it is at least somewhat important to folklorists. Zagalejo^^^ 00:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't understand why we should delete this article when "it's great as a source". --J.Mundo (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: The reason why we should preserve this article, which is to say the very reason why I have devoted so much time on this book. Is that this book while seemingly vague as it may or may not be within mainstream literature it is quintessential within in its genre. Without this book we would know essentially nothing today on mythical animals of the United States and that entire field folklore which it covers, a piece of American heritage, most likely would have been lost. I have reworked the article and hopefully more on to the readers satisfaction. My gracious thanks go out to those who help to save this article from deletion. Kudos. --User:Tripodero (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge: I added merge templates to two other pages. Could not some of the content be put there also?  pages are: Fearsome critters and Legendary creatures.  -Fremte (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.