Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Ellwood

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 as non-notable author. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taylor Ellwood

Taylor Ellwood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

completing malformed AFD attemp by someone Mattisse(talk) 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Seems to have published a number of books, but all seem to have been very limited in circulation. (The Library of Congress and a library in Dunedin are the only places I can find that have any of them.) Still, I could be convinced of notability. —Cuiviénen 01:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Immanion Press, while lacking a Wikipedia article, does turn up 18,400 Google hits, impressive for a publisher. I change my vote to weak keep. —Cuiviénen 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, back to delete, per Kathryn. —Cuiviénen 04:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. While not exactly a vanity press, Immanion is a small, print-on-demand house, which employs Ellwood. As he is in charge of buying projects for the imprint his books appear under, it is very close to the same situation as a vanity press or self-publishing. The "press" store is on CafePress, which may also be who prints their books. Also, article was started by Rosencomet who is now under investigation for spamming Wikipedia with non-notable articles. See: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Kathryn's info Bwithh 02:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unless he's done something more substantial than what is already in the article, I can't really see keeping it. My understanding of Immanion: it was originally a vehicle to keep a particular SF/Fantasy author's books in print (Her name escapes me at the moment.) They've branched out to other authors and subjects but as a print-on-demand house, I'd say they are not much above a vanity press or even web publication. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• delete I did a google search and checked some of the links there. Its nothing but blogs and forums and chat rooms where this person has contributed. No one in reliable sources reviews his/her work, no one has noticed him/her. Thus, he/she isn't notable. --Jayron32 03:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep The original malformed AfD attempt was by someone who has since been blocked for vandalizing this page. --Tsuzuki26 04:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • reply ad hominem fallacy: Argue the article and not the persons involved in the arguement. Regardless of how obnoxious the original nominator was, it turns out (check google search and the article itself) there is an utter lack of any sources to make any verification of any facts that may be asserted in the article, nor is there any real notability. --Jayron32 05:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. MER-C 05:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A search on Amazon and Barnes & Noble returned books in stock. His books have been published and are carried by major book sellers. Seems notable to me, but what do I know? Movementarian (Talk) 06:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • reply interesting. Helpful, but still doesn't point to notability. If no one has reviewed his work, however, then he still isn't notable. The fact that his books are for sale means a little bit, but in light of the fact that no one OUTSIDE of wikipedia appears to have reviewed his work in reliable sources, then Wikipedia shouldn't either. If we can produce such coverage, I would change my vote. Merely being availible for purchase does not indicate notability. --Jayron32 06:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Response. I would agree if we were talking about one book, but we are talking about three at Amazon and four at Barnes & Noble. Having muliple books carried by major book sellers is notable. Movementarian (Talk) 06:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • reply: Anyone who pays for a UPC code and ISBN registration can sell their books through Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble online. They now carry many self-published books due to this. Additionally, print-on-demand books are always listed as "in stock" and/or "supply unlimited", depending on the website. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Kathryn's information. Viridae^Talk 11:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Kathryn's info, per failing WP:NOT a listing of self-published books, and notability. Since anyone who self-publishes can get into Amazon or B&N, also fails WP:RS. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notable per 2 books "shipped from stock" at Amazon which are in their top 250,000 in sales. He has several books for sale in addition which are apparently demand printed and less notable. I would love to know how to find # of books sold, since somewhere I saw a reference to 5,000 books sold as a guideline for notabiliity of author. In addition, I found 2 magazine article he wrote in a scholarly journal published by a university:[1] [2] Edison 17:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Did you actually check out this so called scholarly journal? And please read again Kathryn's note : in stock is a discriptor for print-on-demand. Does Amazon's site somehow specifically say "hey, we keep physical copies of this book"? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• You mean: "Founded in 1959 by Thomas D. Clareson, Extrapolation was published at the College of Wooster until 1979 when it moved to the Kent State University Press. A decade later, Clareson stepped down as editor and was succeeded by Donald M. Hassler of the KSU English Department. In 2002 it moved to the University of Texas at Brownsville in Brownsville, Texas. At that time Donald M. Hassler became executive editor, and the position of editor was filled by Javier A. Martinez of UTB's English Department. The journal was the first to publish academic work on science fiction and fantasy and continues to be a leader in that specialized genre in the literature of popular culture." "Extrapolation is published quarterly by University of Texas, Brownsville. Subscription Rates: $18 one year, $34 two years individual; $28 one year, $54 two years institutional" What is your point?? Did you see the pictures and think it was just a blog?Edison 02:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'd try the links in the article about it... Extrapolation (journal). -999 (Talk) 22:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment From Amazon.com[3] "Availability: In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com." And from Space/Time Magic 's entry[4]: "Only 1 left in stock--order soon (more on the way)." They seem to be selling well. And I'm pretty sure that the independent sellers listed have physical copies on hand. --Tsuzuki26 00:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please provide a source for the authors books being "in [Amazon's] top 250,000 in sales" --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I've heard of this author. If not currently "notable" (whatever that means), certainly an up-and-coming author... -999 (Talk) 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Future notability is never a reason for inclusion. Any one of us might end up notable tomorrow, but we don't go around writing articles that say, "Aaron might be famous in the future, but for now he's just another college student." Arguing notability because you've heard of the author is also fallacious -- plenty of things exist that are verifiable, and thus can be mentioned to someone else, but that dosen't make them notable. Consequentially 00:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Kathryn's mention of "in stock" being a misnomer is correct. That Ellwood's books are available online through Barnes and Noble is nowhere near as noteworthy as having them available on a shelf somewhere. Given Cuivi's commentary, the only shelves this book is on are in Ellwood's house. Consequentially 00:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment They're on my shelf too. And apparently he's gotten a number of good reviews. --Tsuzuki26 00:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Movementarian, Edison and 999. —Hanuman Das 02:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see anyone of his books meeting the proposed criteria for notability of books. Moreover, I want to re-insist on this point: that a book or an author is sold through Amazon does not meet that we have even close to what it takes to build a decent article. Pascal.Tesson 04:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Taylor Ellwood contacted me today and requested that I disclose that a group I am part of declined his offer to publish one of our projects on Immanion. Though I thought I made it clear to him in our brief exchange that the reason for our declining his offer was the details I give above (plus other shortcomings of the press I did not detail) he seems to believe this is a personal issue. He says he and I know each other. However, AFAIK, our contact was limited to two e-mails, IIRC, where he laid out details of the offer, my colleagues and I asked him questions about the press, and after research and discussion among ourselves, we decided to decline. Mr. Ellwood and I do know a few people in common, as is common in the small pond of the Pagan community, but we have never met and I really know very little about him beyond those brief e-mails. You can see our recent exchange here on my talk page. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As another note of disclosure, I was part of the group (eight co-authors) Kathryn mentioned above that declined Taylor (as editor) and Immanion's offer to publish our project. I had no interchange with Taylor except for reading a couple of e-mails that were forwarded to the whole group. I did much of the research into Immanion which informed our group's decision to decline Taylor's offer. The information I found at that time is why I'm not inclined to view it as a significant press. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How are these interactions relevant to this discussion? Why is the subject of an article involved in this discussion even peripherally? -THB 20:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Article does not give evidence of notability. The fact that he is an author and is married is irrelevant. Appears to be an attempt at marketing. Fails WP:BIO & WP:COI. -THB 19:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It would be like writing a book on physics, one that sells almost not at all, and then go around claiming to be a Notable Physicist. Pretty common thought, in the world of the occult.

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.