Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah M. Tillman

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. 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. Ty 02:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah M. Tillman[edit]

Non-notable illustrator. The only real notability is that she was the illustrator of a debut novel (The People of Paper) 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 [1], but even then it is mainly about her experience with cancer. --Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holdon on this one, may be notable.Cholga^talK! 09:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 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. Geeman (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Geeman (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But what is the difference between a "notable" illustrator and just an "ordinary" illustrator (i.e. just a regular job for someone) ? Are we to assume any person who illustrates any novel is notable? I understand how others such as Richard Chopping and James Jean 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. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 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.... Geeman (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 Wikipedia's original research policy. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- 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 to talk about her. Mangoe (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.Ribs27 (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC) page's primary author[reply]
Delete 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. Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Freund

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Tapper

Ribs27 (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Page's primary author[reply]

Delete: 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 Notability is not inherited. If this person were a notable columnist then there will have to be some citation of other people writing about her as such. User:Ribs27, just because you can find other stuff you think is not notable has nothing to do with this discussion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia is to be a research tool, then I think Tillman needs to be included, especially 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.Debarag7791 —Preceding comment was added at 20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's illustrated ~~an article~~ articles and supplied the ~~cover art~~ 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 notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 the argument keeps coming up that this doesn't make her notable. I think that argument is tenuous and I stand by that. Ribs27 (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Debarag7791 —Preceding comment was added at 01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are the book reviews I consulted: [2], [3]. No mention of the illustrator. I also searched Google for the title of the book and the artist's name: [4]. The single hit is the Bomb magazine article already referenced in the article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(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? Debarag7791 —Preceding comment was added at 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment External biographical information from an independent source is extremely important. To say that it has little bearing or significance is to ignore one of the fundamental criteria of notability guidelines of Wikipedia. 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 notability is not inherited. 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 Wikipedia's no original research. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. starfishmonkey —Preceding comment was added at 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, You need to find sites that talk about her, mentioning the book. She doesn't inherit notability from the book. Mangoe (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia -- I wrote that Tillman's notability (or lack thereof) has no 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debarag7791 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Debarag7791 —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia's original research policy, notability guidelines, reliable sources, notability is not inherited and neutral point of view. It seems that almost all the arguments for the inclusion of this article are ignoring these fundamental guidelines. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly NN. I see our article on the novel doesn't mention the illustrations either. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Modernist (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia policies, a separate entry is not justifiable. However, given the nature of the book and the nature of these illustrations (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. Debarag7791

— Debarag7791 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.