Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Andrews

Add links
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 was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Andrews[edit]

Ted Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable page of a self-published author whose personal website (also doubling as his "publisher" site) makes the case fairly clearly for his lack of notability. Much puffery, but not much notability. To wit:

  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. No
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. No
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. No
  4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. No

So the subject falls well below our notability threshhold. Eusebeus (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kevin (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the only thing I see [1] here are false positives. He lacked news coverage. Alexius08 (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note regarding the constant relistings/reopenings. This AFD debate was first listed on October 17, and closed a few gours early as a "delete" on October 24. It was reopened following this DRV discussion. Yours truly mistakenly closed the AFD as a "delete" yesterday since I was unaware of the preceding DRV. Due to comments that indicate that some rework of the article may be forthcoming, I am now reopening, and putting it on the October 29 list so that the matter can be discussed for seven consecutive days, and that a final decision can be reached once in for all. I apologize for my role in prolonging the process on what ought to be a simple matter. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only references are either self-written by the author or the publisher, which is the same person. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Author and publisher are NOT "the same person" at all, and the obituary reference is from the Columbus Dispatch. Please check yourself for accuacy before making foolish statements. --cat Catherineyronwode (talk)
  • DO NOT DELETE - if you delete this article, then you will have to delete 100s of other similar articles and "lacked news coverage." Those wishing to delete are ill-informed as to the import of this author's contribution to the respect and appreciation of animals and all living beings. Surely that accounts for something on Wikipedia. If not, then we will have to assume that Wikipedia is restricted to only its owners' opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.53.49 (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC) — 71.180.53.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE - I wish to disagree with the original deletion comments. First point is that Mr Andrews' works are not all self-published; his better-known books have been released by a publishing company not associated directly with him (primarily Llewellyn). In regards to the first point raised:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Yes Ted Andrews is greatly respected within a number of areas, including the neo-Pagan and numerous New-Age communities, as an expert in plant and animal symbolism stemming from numerous cultures and the applicability to their use today. In particular, "Animal Speak" is regarded by many in the New Age community as a definitive work on animal totems. According to the publisher's website (http://www.llewellyn.com/product_publisher_reviews.php?ean=9780875420288), this book alone has sold over 400,000 copies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khohmann (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I did find several independent references to this person, all discussing his death [2],[3],[4],[5]; unfortunately, they're blogs, which aren't generally recommended as Wikipedia sources. Even so, combined with the high sales figures, I think there might be a case for notability here - it's pretty borderline, though. Robofish (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first blog is from About.com. Any individual can write a column on that website, so this does not establish notability. The last three links are from blogs that have no editorial oversight. These sources cannot be used to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One big red flag is that the article goes on and on explaining in great detail what are these awards that Andrews won, as if the author expected the reader to not know. This means that, at least in the mind of the author, these prizes are not that important. As impressive as the sales figures sound, alone they do not establish notability. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the Nom. Look, imma let this finish, but this has been opened now for 10 days, for 10 days. I fail to understand, Sjakkalle, why this AfD needs 15 days worth of discussion. Consensus seems clear enough. Eusebeus (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry that I contributed to the mess here. The reason I reopened was because of the previous DRV; closing just a few hours after DRV had reopened was contrary to what was decided there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See, by screwing this up (7 hours for Chrissake), now we have socks, SPAs, and other COIs as part of offwiki campaigning coming to very strongest possible keep their self-published new age guru. What a farce. This should have been closed as delete and some common sense exercised at the DRV. Eusebeus (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He was a well-known, multiple-title author. His books have tended to remain in print. I say this as a book dealer who does not carry his books in my own metaphysical bookshop, because i am not into his style of working, but, trust me, he was respected and his works are sought out in the New Age community. He also had a long-running column in New Age Retailer magazine. The article about him is very press-release like, but that is not the fault of Ted Andrews and should not reflect upon his notability. -- cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, his books have remained in print, but this does not establish notability per WP:AUTHOR. Do you have secondary reliable sources that prove that he was "was respected and his works are sought out in the New Age community"? Cunard (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • His primary publisher, the biggest one in his field, says he sold over two million books just with THEM. There are dozens of books that refer to his books as either recommended reading or references. Rosencomet (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any secondary reliable sources that say that Ted Andrews sold over two million books with his primary publisher? Cunard (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessary. The fact is not controversial, and no one has contradicted it. A public statement by the owner of Llewellyn Worldwide is as good a source as one can ask for.Rosencomet (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not Ted Andrews is self-published does not add to or detract from Ted Andrew's notability. Cunard (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure it does. An author that can't get a major press to publish their books needs support for his notability. Non-notable authors don't get major publishers like Llewellyn to produce 17 of their books. And they don't stay in print for decades. Rosencomet (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of self-published authors are non-notable. However, not all authors with major publishers are notable. Those that are notable have received coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. I do not see that here. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An author in a relatively small-interest field can be notable without being newsworthy. I would not expect "multiple, independent reliable sources". Andrews is not a rock star, he is a well-respected author who has sold millions of books. He has been recognized by awards in his industry.Rosencomet (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep My wife has four of his books, and for years has been been recommending them (especially Animal Speak) to friends. He really has been influential in the Neo-Pagan community. Now of course, for those that consider the Neo-Pagan community to be of no account, I suppose that won't matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwreinhart (talk • contribs) 13:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC) — Gwreinhart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Do you have secondary reliable sources that prove that Andrews "has been influential in the Neo-Pagan community"? Cunard (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The obits listed in The Witches' Voice and The Wild Hunt indicate his importance to the Neo-Pagan communuity. Rosencomet (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a VERY prominent New Age and Neo-Pagan author and lecturer. It doesn't matter whether you have any respect for the fields, that statement is still true. He is an award winning author, and his books are published by major presses, not just vanity presses or other self-published methods. His career spans at least three decades. I have to say that Eusebeus sounds both uninformed and somewhat prejudiced when he makes reference to Andrews as a "self-published new age guru". I hope he recognizes that some long-time editors have now spoken up. The article can certainly use some sprucing up, though. Rosencomet (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, and I don't understand why you don't note this, he has written over 40 books, 17 of them published by the most prominent New Age and magical publisher in the world. Has he created a notable body of work? Absolutely, with the classic Animal Speak at the top of the list. He's written best selling (in their genres), award-winning books for over thirty years.
    • Look how wide-spread both his acclaim in general and the reaction to his death is in his community:

'STRONG KEEP' - the nature of "publishing" has changed greatly since the Internet and many new types of technology allow people to say, write, speak, etc. in new ways. Wikipedia is an example. Ted Andrews provided outstanding information to people (including me) who might not otherwise have access to it. His books are read by millions as has been noted elsewhere. RainbowLady77 (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC) RainbowLady77[reply]

Obituaries[edit]

    • The problem with a google book search on Ted Andrews is that there's so MUCH to go through. After 16 pages referencing his books, you finally get to the dozens of referrals to his books by authors and inclusions in recommended reading lists. I'm adding a short list of references to the article. But when an editor says "he's written 40 books, they stayed in print for decades, he's won several awards, one of his books is considered a classic, he's also produced many CDs & cassettes, his passing is noted throughout the community he writes for, and he's sold over TWO MILLION copies of his books just from Llewellyn Worldwide" and Cunard says "yeah, but can you provide support that he's notable", I just don't see what else is necessary.
    • Here are a few books that reference Ted Andrews and/or his work:
  • Going Native or Going Naive?: White Shamanism and the Neo-Noble Savage by Dagmar Wernitznig
  • Making Magick: What it Is and How it Works by Edain MCcCoy
  • The Complete Idiot's Guide to Divining the Future by Laura Scott, Mary Kay Linge, Deborah S. Romaine
  • Complete Idiot's Guide to Pet Psychic Communication by Debbie McGillivray, Eve Adamson
  • Dancing with Dragons: Invoke Their Ageless Wisdom & Power by Deanna J. Conway
  • Animals as Teachers & Healers: True Stories & Reflections by Susan Chernak McElroy
  • Becoming Multisensory by Donna Kettler Guice
  • Selling the Sacred: American Indians and the New Age by Ray A. Hemachandra

Rosencomet (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

  • Analysis of the sources posted above by Rosencomet (talk · contribs):
    A1. Llewellyn Worldwide Author's Biography is from Ted Andrews' publishing company. It cannot be considered independent of the subject.
    • Llewellyn Worldwide is a major publisher. All publishers get biographical data from their authors. Different presses are likely to have similar data from the same source. The important point is: Llewellyn would NOT publish material in it's author's biographies that is not factual, and unless you have contrary data, it makes sense to accept this source. Andrews has neither ownership nor is an agent of this company.Rosencomet (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Llewellyn Worldwide is the publisher for Ted Andrews. It cannot be classified as an independent, reliable source, so a biography from this website does not confer notability. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A2. Controverscial.com Biography is a personal website. Because it has not received editorial fact-checking, it cannot be considered a reliable source.
A3. Sayahda Website: Animal Totems is also from a personal website.
A4. Ascension Gateway: Spiritual Quotes is a website that provides quotes. It has not received the fact-checking that sources such as newspapers or magazines have received, so it is not a reliable source that establishes notability.

Obituaries:
B1. Sounds True Obituary for Ted Andrews is an unreliable source because it is a page from WordPress.com, a website that hosts blogs.

    • Sounds True is a well-known company which produces audiobooks, CDs, and DVDs among other products. This obit was part of their news site, Sounds True Press Room. Whatever else wordpress may host, this is a legitimate obituary within the industry.Rosencomet (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B2. Horizons Magazine Obituary for Ted Andrews is a blog.
B3. The Witches' Voice Obituary for Ted Andrews is a reprint of another blog, the Wild Hunt Obituary.
    • Witches' Voice is a well-respected webzine in the Neo-Pagan community which would not reprint this obit if it did not meet their standards.Rosencomet (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be a "a well-respected webzine in the Neo-Pagan community", but the fact remains that this obituary from a blog has not received the fact-checking that reliable sources receive. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B4. Wild Hunt Obituary is a blog. See also B3.
B5. Owl Athena Obituary is a reprint of B4. This link is from Blogspot, a website that hosts blogs.
B6. One Witch way Obituary is from a blog. None of these sources are sufficient because none of them are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

Yes, he has won awards, but none of the awards are notable. His books stayed in print, but this does not establish notability per WP:AUTHOR. If he wrote "a classic", that classic must have received reviews in reliable sources (eg. a newspaper or a magazine; not blogs). I have been unable to find any reviews in reliable sources. Two million of his books are sold worldwide; have any secondary reliable sources covered this? Cunard (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • A public statement from the owner of Llewellyn Worldwide that Ted Andrews books (just those Llewellyn published, mind you) have sold over two million copies is certainly sufficient. There is no data offered to refute this or a single other fact presented in the article by a single editor.Rosencomet (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is not determined by how many books an individual has sold. Notability is gauged by the coverage in reliable sources resulting from those sales. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without independent reliable sources, this individual does not pass the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break[edit]

  • Keep per meeting WP:GNG. Whether the subject or his philosphies are liked or disliked is not relevent. Meeting criteria of WP:N is. And oh.... I am neither a sock or SPA. Cheers... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the sources in the article are independent, reliable sources, so Andrews does not meet WP:GNG or WP:N. Furthermore, none of the "delete" votes have talked about [w]hether the subject or his philosphies are liked or disliked", so your bringing that up is irrelevant to this debate. I concur that this individual should be judged on whether or not he meets WP:N, so this article should be deleted for failing that guideline. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cunard's analysis of the sources. Excellent and thorough as always. I note that I have independently conducted a search and am unable to locate any reliable source providing significant coverage. Tim Song (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much though I agree with Cunard's words and those of Tim Song, they appear to have omitted to consider a redirect to Edward Andrews.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have omitted to consider a redirect to Edward Andrews because I believe that "Ted Andrews" is an implausible target for "Edward Andrews". Cunard (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a well-known New Age author and lecturer. His many books and his high book sales attest his notability. I've heard of his appearances for decades at several events, both New Age and Neopagan. Animal Speak is a very well known book of it's type. JuliusAaron (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide reliable sources that discuss Ted Andrews' high book sales? The lack of third-party reliable sources about Andrews' books strongly indicates that this individual's contributions to the literary industry do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. In its present form, the article violates Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability because none of the information in the article is sourced to a reliable source. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cunard says it best - we need some indication of independent notice. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ted_Andrews&oldid=1142608630"