502:(Corrections are appreciated, Ethicoaestheticist.) I wonder if we can take an alternate approach to the question here, one that seems to have been touched on in some of the previous posts. I want to ask: Would the notable novel _The People of Paper_ be the same work without the illustrations? If the answer is no -- and I think it would be hard to argue any other point -- then are the illustrations not notable, as well? It happens that, despite credit given to the illustrator in the imprint information, external biographical information is scant. To my mind, this fact has little bearing on the significance and/or notability of the book's illustrations. And so, a final question: This novel is notable, its author is notable, and the illustrations within the book are clearly notable, so how can we not regard the person responsible for the illustrations as notable?
640:
illustrations are obviously one of the formal aspects of the book (in, for example, Plascencia's use of
Tillman's renditions of gang hand signs as chapter headings). This is not original research, it is a fact -- illustrations are part of a book's formal structure -- and I'm sure if were to ask Plascencia's readers (not one of whom, I am sure, are among those discussing this issue), they would agree. I do not suggest that Tillman's notability is debatable -- at least, let us say, her notability outside of the readers of experimental fiction or music magazines in Los Angeles. But we seem to have arrived at a point where deletion proponents are arguing, oh, well she's not notable, so her work is not notable, too. And that's some specious reasoning.
459:
I've seen. I don't know how many or which reviews of _The People of Paper_ Ethicoaestheticist looked at, but time and again the material and formal aspects of the novel are discussed and championed, not to mention largely regarded as what makes it so singular. Tillman's illustrations are a crucial part of the formal structure of the book and, arguably, its content, and thus I do not think her notability can be so easily dismissed. Finally, a quick search of the online version of _LA Record_ -- a weekly Los
Angeles publication with a print run of 5,000 -- reveals that Tillman has not illustrated "an" article but sixteen of them in the past 12 months.
531:. That is not to say that without the illustrations the book would've been different. Maybe it was an integral part or maybe it's not. The point is that none of the reviews say anything about the importance of the illustrations (i.e. without them the book would not have been the same) To claim that it does without any citable references goes against Knowledge (XXG)'s
549:
whim of individual wikipedia administrators as to whether or not an entry gets to stay. she illustrated this book and shes a regular contributor to la record which even though it doesnt have a wikipedia entry is a notable publication. i think if the proposed entry had been written slightly differently it would not be provoking all of this notability discussion.
592:
bearing on the illustrations' notability (though if I had to go back I would write "significance"). Further, I don't think I'm offering original research when I argue that the illustrations are integral. The unique material aspects of the book are mentioned in the reviews, critiques, etc., and clearly the illustrations are a part of this materiality.
397:
Here's the thing -- the illustrations in the first edition of
Salvador Plascencia's _People of Paper_ are not incidental. They're a fundamental part of the meaning of this text. If one of the purposes of Knowledge (XXG) is to be a research tool, then I think Tillman needs to be included, especially
284:
Googling for the book and her name was a means of looking for notable discussion of her work. That's the fundamental meaning of notable: that someone has noted it, right? And that's the rub: while I agree the work in question is striking, I don't see how she can be claimed as notable if nobody wants
458:
I must point out, gently, that
Ethicoaestheticist is incorrect. Sarah Tillman did not render the cover art but the internal illustrations for _The People of Paper_, as noted in the first flyleaf imprint information in the first and subsequent editions of the book -- as well as two foreign versions
440:
What sets her apart from other working illustrators is that she battled and beat cancer at two very crucial times in her life-- during high school and during college-- and might I add that according the to the article in
Whittier Daily News she was still salutatorian of her graduating class. I know
333:
The book is not her only achievement. And consider this: I have done some research, and I'm finding less notable alumni in the lists of schools of equal or comparable prestige to
Whittier College. For example, in the following entry, this singer/songwriter has on his page a mere discography that is
548:
so basically all someone has to do is throw up three websites that talk about the illustrations in this book and then this illustrator is notable? i understand why wikipedia has such hard definitions of notability but given some other entries ive seen it seems like when it comes down to it its the
245:
I would not assume that every illustrator is worthy of mention. However, in this case it seems clear that not mentioning the illustrator would be strange given the nature of the book. I wouldn't object to rolling this article into the book article, but that's not what's being asked for here....
740:
As
Dysepsion has pointed out, unfortunately this proposed entry seems to have been entered by a non-neutral party, and given notability requirements and other Knowledge (XXG) policies, a separate entry is not justifiable. However, given the nature of the book and the nature of these illustrations
591:
Dysepsion, I think you misrepresented what I wrote, above. I did not suggest that external biographical information from an independent source has little bearing or significance on whether
Tillman should be included in Knowledge (XXG) -- I wrote that Tillman's notability (or lack thereof) has no
260:
How is the fact that there are absolutely no external sources mentioning her body of work as the sole subject prove the opposite that she is not notable? The question here is the illustrator. I believe that she should be mentioned in the book article but having a seperate article given the very
527:. To say that it has little bearing or significance is to ignore one of the fundamental criteria of notability guidelines of Knowledge (XXG). The fact that Sarah Tillman has not been the subject of any independent work/review shows that she is not a noteworthy illustrator. As mentioned before
639:
Dysepsion, with respect, I must note that this is the second time you've misread one of my posts. I wrote that the materiality of the book and its formal uniqueness -- not the illustrations -- are mentioned in reviews and critiques. However, though they are not mentioned explicitly, the
204:
Note: After reading the debate below, I'm changing my "Comment" to a vote to "Keep." I'm afraid the arguments for her being non-notable strike me as proving the opposite more often than not, and have not addressed the core problem with the deletion described above.
261:
limited scope of her work is not necessary. It can't be outright assumed that without the illustrations the book would've been noteworthy. None of the reviews mention the integral nature of the illustrations and to say that it does goes against
222:
But what is the difference between a "notable" illustrator and just an "ordinary" illustrator (i.e. just a regular job for someone)Â ? Are we to assume any person who illustrates any novel is notable? I understand how others such as
425:
illustrations for a notable author's book. I've searched online reviews of the book, but can't find anything about the cover illustration being in any way significant. A regular working illustrator at the start of their career. Not
188:: Well, if the novel is worthy of an article then the illustrator is worthy of one too, so I think this deletion needs to go back a step or two. The blog aspects of the article should certainly be reduced to a single entry.
621:
I've tried to look for reviews which mention the illustrations as being an integral part of the book. I've found none. Perhaps I've missed something unless you can provide the reviews and critiques you are speaking of.
398:
as a separate entry of the kind under discussion will link to her other works. We do not need to think too long before envisioning any number of users who would benefit from this kind of comparative research.
231:
have articles because of their overall body of work but
Tillman's work seems minor. If anything there should be a mention in the novel's article but I'm not sure if a seperate article is needed. ----
133:) but is this enough? She contributes to LA Record, a blog which in and of itself isn't really that notable. No outside biographical references regarding her except this article from a newspaper
48:. Whether the illustrator is mentioned in the book article is an editorial decision on that article, but it would seem reasonable to me to do so, in which case a redirect can be created to it.
319:
as she doesn't appear to be notable enough yet. Googling for her name and the title of the book she illustrated produces a single page of hits, and not all of them are relevant. Maybe later.
369:: So what do we have here?. There is not enough reference to show a notable illustrator, doing an illustration for another notable person's book, Salvador Plascencia, wont work because
122:
334:
no more notable than Ms. Tillman's contribution to a popular LA publication. In addition, his collaboration with Ben Harper is no more notable than Ms. Tillman's with
Plascencia.
153:
301:
LA Record is not a blog, although there may be blogs on its website. LA Record is a print publication with wide circulation in Los Angeles. Ms. Tillman contributes regularly.
343:
Furthermore, Harvery Mudd College lists in their notable alumni a young man who is (brace yourself) a former member of a less than noteworthy band.
89:
84:
484:
93:
762:
684:
478:
17:
758:
607:
76:
668:
532:
741:(which I've discussed above, and ad nauseum), I think a one-line mention in the entry for the book is most certainly called for.
386:
672:
373:. If this person were a notable columnist then there will have to be some citation of other people writing about her as such.
687:. It seems that almost all the arguments for the inclusion of this article are ignoring these fundamental guidelines. ----
676:
491:
431:
778:
441:
the argument keeps coming up that this doesn't make her notable. I think that argument is tenuous and I stand by that.
36:
382:
134:
680:
528:
370:
777:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
161:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
733:
716:
693:
650:
628:
611:
582:
559:
541:
512:
495:
469:
450:
435:
408:
390:
359:
328:
310:
294:
271:
255:
237:
214:
197:
179:
165:
142:
58:
487:
427:
754:
646:
603:
595:
555:
508:
465:
404:
378:
80:
550:
483:. No mention of the illustrator. I also searched Google for the title of the book and the artist's name:
750:
742:
641:
599:
503:
481:
460:
399:
72:
64:
193:
129:
Non-notable illustrator. The only real notability is that she was the illustrator of a debut novel (
729:
157:
130:
442:
374:
351:
302:
712:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
578:
446:
355:
324:
306:
290:
251:
224:
210:
262:
707:
as clearly NN. I see our article on the novel doesn't mention the illustrations either.
725:
689:
624:
537:
267:
233:
138:
51:
708:
486:. The single hit is the Bomb magazine article already referenced in the article.--
110:
574:
320:
286:
247:
206:
189:
228:
573:, mentioning the book. She doesn't inherit notability from the book.
523:
External biographical information from an independent source is
381:
you think is not notable has nothing to do with this discussion.
136:, but even then it is mainly about her experience with cancer. --
771:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
346:
338:
117:
106:
102:
98:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
781:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
569:No, You need to find sites that talk about
669:Knowledge (XXG)'s original research policy
263:Knowledge (XXG)'s original research policy
477:These are the book reviews I consulted:
152:: This debate has been included in the
347:http://en.wikipedia.org/Michael_Tapper
154:list of Visual arts-related deletions
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
339:http://en.wikipedia.org/Tom_Freund
24:
1:
453:22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
451:22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
436:21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
409:20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
391:18:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
360:18:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
329:17:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
311:17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
295:21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
238:16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
198:09:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
180:09:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
166:06:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
143:02:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
377:, just because you can find
175:on this one, may be notable.
681:notability is not inherited
529:notability is not inherited
371:Notability is not inherited
798:
421:articles and supplied the
734:13:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
717:13:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
694:00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
651:19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
629:02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
612:04:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
583:12:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
560:22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
542:21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
513:21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
496:13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
470:01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
272:00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
256:23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
215:23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
59:02:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
774:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
383:Fountains of Bryn Mawr
362:Page's primary author
763:few or no other edits
685:neutral point of view
673:notability guidelines
313:page's primary author
765:outside this topic.
533:no original research
525:extremely important
285:to talk about her.
131:The People of Paper
488:Ethicoaestheticist
428:Ethicoaestheticist
417:She's illustrated
766:
653:
614:
598:comment added by
562:
515:
472:
411:
168:
789:
776:
748:
692:
677:reliable sources
644:
627:
593:
553:
540:
506:
463:
402:
270:
236:
225:Richard Chopping
148:
141:
120:
114:
96:
73:Sarah M. Tillman
65:Sarah M. Tillman
54:
34:
797:
796:
792:
791:
790:
788:
787:
786:
785:
779:deletion review
772:
688:
623:
536:
266:
232:
137:
116:
87:
71:
68:
52:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
795:
793:
784:
783:
746:
745:
737:
736:
719:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
657:
656:
655:
654:
634:
633:
632:
631:
616:
615:
588:
587:
586:
585:
564:
563:
551:starfishmonkey
545:
544:
517:
516:
499:
498:
474:
473:
455:
454:
438:
412:
394:
393:
336:
335:
331:
314:
299:
298:
297:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
217:
201:
200:
170:
169:
158:David Eppstein
127:
126:
67:
62:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
794:
782:
780:
775:
769:
768:
767:
764:
760:
756:
752:
744:
739:
738:
735:
731:
727:
723:
720:
718:
714:
710:
706:
703:
702:
695:
691:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
652:
649:was added at
648:
643:
638:
637:
636:
635:
630:
626:
620:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
590:
589:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
567:
566:
565:
561:
558:was added at
557:
552:
547:
546:
543:
539:
534:
530:
526:
522:
519:
518:
514:
511:was added at
510:
505:
501:
500:
497:
493:
489:
485:
482:
479:
476:
475:
471:
468:was added at
467:
462:
457:
456:
452:
448:
444:
439:
437:
433:
429:
424:
420:
416:
413:
410:
407:was added at
406:
401:
396:
395:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
364:
363:
361:
357:
353:
349:
348:
344:
341:
340:
332:
330:
326:
322:
318:
315:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
283:
282:
281:
280:
273:
269:
264:
259:
258:
257:
253:
249:
244:
241:
240:
239:
235:
230:
226:
221:
218:
216:
212:
208:
203:
202:
199:
195:
191:
187:
184:
183:
182:
181:
178:
174:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
146:
145:
144:
140:
135:
132:
124:
119:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
56:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
773:
770:
747:
721:
704:
664:
570:
524:
520:
422:
418:
414:
366:
350:
345:
342:
337:
316:
242:
219:
185:
176:
172:
171:
149:
128:
50:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
761:) has made
751:Debarag7791
743:Debarag7791
724:per above.
690:Ãysepsion â
645:âPreceding
642:Debarag7791
625:Ãysepsion â
600:Debarag7791
594:âPreceding
554:âPreceding
538:Ãysepsion â
507:âPreceding
504:Debarag7791
464:âPreceding
461:Debarag7791
403:âPreceding
400:Debarag7791
379:other stuff
375:User:Ribs27
268:Ãysepsion â
234:Ãysepsion â
139:Ãysepsion â
426:notable.--
419:an article
229:James Jean
726:Modernist
667:refer to
423:cover art
759:contribs
608:contribs
596:unsigned
535:. ----
123:View log
709:Johnbod
647:comment
556:comment
521:Comment
509:comment
466:comment
405:comment
220:Comment
90:protect
85:history
722:Delete
705:Delete
665:Please
575:Mangoe
443:Ribs27
415:Delete
367:Delete
352:Ribs27
321:Mangoe
317:Delete
303:Ribs27
287:Mangoe
265:. ----
248:Geeman
207:Geeman
190:Geeman
186:Delete
177:Cholga
173:Holdon
118:delete
94:delete
46:Delete
243:Reply
121:) â (
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
755:talk
730:talk
713:talk
683:and
622:----
604:talk
579:talk
492:talk
447:talk
432:talk
387:talk
356:talk
325:talk
307:talk
291:talk
252:talk
227:and
211:talk
194:talk
162:talk
156:. â
150:Note
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
571:her
757:â¢
749:â
732:)
715:)
679:,
675:,
671:,
610:)
606:â¢
581:)
494:)
480:,
449:)
434:)
389:)
358:)
327:)
309:)
293:)
254:)
213:)
196:)
164:)
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
53:Ty
753:(
728:(
711:(
602:(
577:(
490:(
445:(
430:(
385:(
354:(
323:(
305:(
289:(
250:(
209:(
192:(
160:(
125:)
115:(
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.