Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Wetzel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Joshua Wetzel
Delete. No demonstrated notability. One book on a small, print-on-demand house. See related discussion of publisher and editor in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Ellwood discussion. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - It's not a print-on-demand house. He is also famous within the chaos magic community. --Tsuzuki26 03:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- reply: Immanion is print-on-demand (POD), as confirmed by the editor of the book in his comment on my talk page ("IP, while being a POD"), and as detailed in the other AfD link I provided above. I assume you have read this information, since you have participated in both discussions. The POD status is also demonstrated in the link to the books page that says of the book, "Stock: Unlimited" --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- comment Okay. But how is this a disqualifier? I've seen the book on store shelves before, as well as Taylor Ellwood's. --Tsuzuki26 04:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- reply:"It's not a print-on-demand house" is the reason you gave for keeping the article. I was correcting that. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- comment In that case, I will change my reasoning to "What is wrong with that method of doing business, and what does it have to do with notability?" and reiterate that he is famous within the chaos magic community. --Tsuzuki26 06:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- reply: the proposed criteria for notability of books. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- comment I see nothing in there about print-on-demand publishing. What are you referring to exactly? (And sign your comment, please.) --Tsuzuki26 07:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- reply: the proposed criteria for notability of books. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- comment In that case, I will change my reasoning to "What is wrong with that method of doing business, and what does it have to do with notability?" and reiterate that he is famous within the chaos magic community. --Tsuzuki26 06:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- reply:"It's not a print-on-demand house" is the reason you gave for keeping the article. I was correcting that. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- comment Okay. But how is this a disqualifier? I've seen the book on store shelves before, as well as Taylor Ellwood's. --Tsuzuki26 04:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BIO Deli nk 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly fails under WP:BIO --Orange Mike 21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Insufficient independent sources to establish notability. Edison 21:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn per WP:BIO Eusebeus 01:01, 22 November 2006 (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.
