Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Beaulieu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Beaulieu

non-notable writer hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep - in light of the recent expansion and removal of POV fodder from the article, I'm changing my vote. Whilst I don't think that a freelance writer such as Mr. Beaulieu is particularly notable, the article seems to pass WP:BIO with the reformatting hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a notable Canadian writer with several books published by non-vanity publishers that I have heard of. (He also operated his own book publishing company for a while, but closed it down.) I confirmed the titles and their ISBNs at the Library and Archives of Canada catalog at http://amicus.collectionscanada.ca/aaweb/aalogine.htm and I found independent coverage on a number of sites. In general, anyone published by Mercury or Coach House should be considered a serious author. I realize that there are a lot of nn authors out there, but some time with a library catalog and Google will help to sort the notable from the non-notable. For U.S. authors, visit the Library of Congress catalog at http://catalog.loc.gov and for British authors, visit http://catalogue.bl.uk I have sometimes been able to find out the year of birth of an academic by searching a library catalog because of the cataloguing convention of including the author's year of birth (and sometimes death) in a cataog entry. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm neutral on this vote at the moment, but I would point out that ISBNs and inclusion in these major national library archives may not be good indicators of notability:
    • ISBNs can be bought by anyone, who can then use the number to list a completely fake book on Amazon. This has been used for hoaxes on Wikipedia in the past (November 2005 example. Incidentally the hoax book in that afd is STILL listed on Amazon[1]. I emailed Amazon after the afd closed but apparently noone read my note or cared.). Wikipedia's guidelines on book notability should be updated to reflect this problem with ISBNs.
    • The British Library, and the Library and Archives Canada are legal deposit libraries. In the UK, every book published by British publishers must, by law, have a copy sent to the British Library for cataloging. The same applies to the Library and Archive of Canada see this link for Canadian publishers (and note that a very broad definition of "publisher" is used here - covering all individuals and associations as well as formal publishers). The Library of Congress, on the other hand, does not work as a legal deposit library and is more selective in what it adds to its collections. (though it does act as a copyright guarantor, requiring 2 copies of all copyrighted books to be sent to it - these undergo a selection process and may not be added to the collection, but I don't know if they are catalogued) Bwithh 06:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Even if copyright is not being claimed, U.S. publishers are expected to send 2 copies of their books to the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ07d.html This is referred to as "mandatory deposit" rather than "legal deposit". TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah okay. The Wikipedia article on the Library of Congress is inaccurate then. Though I don't think if this is really the same as legal deposit, since the LoC is still selective about what it retains[2] Bwithh 07:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I recognize that it is difficult for people outside Canada to tell whether a Canadian publisher is legitimate or not. The publishers that belong to the Literary Press Group, an association of independent publishers in Canada, or to the http://www.pubcouncil.ca/ are legitimate, in my opinion. See http://www.lpg.ca/publishers.html for a list. See http://www.obpo.ca/awards.cfm for another page that lists books from both Coach House and Mercury Press. Quill & Quire at http://www.quillandquire.com/ is also a good source of information about the book publishing industry in Canada. I hope that these links will be helpful for editors evaluating future articles about Canadian publishers and writers. I have dealt here only with English-language publishers. French-language book publishers have their own organizations. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - but let editors expand to further establish notability --Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as above. -- Alias Flood 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep has books with reputable publishers. The rest of the biog seems fairly marginal. Dlyons493 Talk 18:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A little-known writer, granted - but he has been published by three of the most respected small presses in Canada. Coach House has published Atwood and Ondaatje, amongst others.--Victoriagirl 03:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kungfu Adam. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above, fairly well known int he Canadina Small Press world. WayneRay 20:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay
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.