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 no consensus. Seems pointless to relist for a third time. Suggest incorporating some of the sources and info mentioned into the article; failing that, a renomination seems plausible. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Ellis

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage about this author or her books. Fails WP:CREATIVE. SL93 (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The author wrote a number of books for Scholastic's Point Horror series (example). The series is by multiple authors over the years and is notable with multiple sources. Per AUTHOR #3: "The person has .. played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work". Critical attention paid to the series as a whole, which she played a part in co-creating. Ancillary information, she wrote books for the New Adventures of Mary Kate and Ashley series (example), which featured the Olson Twins, since the first series had movie and TV tie-ins, though not the New series. Finally she wrote books for the Goosebump series which were televised (example) as Goosebumps_(TV_series), more titles listed here. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much of an opinion either way but did she really "co-create" these book lines or was she simply an author for hire? If the former then I could see AUTHOR possibly applying but if she simply had a contract to deliver books for a pre-existing series then no. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy was first a movie, only a TV series later, the novelization came with the movie pre-series. Notable authors are hired to write sceenplays based on novels, and likewise notable authors are hired to write novelizations of screenplays. That shouldn't concerns us. Much of Disney is based on prior art for example, all the Star Wars and Star Trek novels etc.. many of those novelization authors are on Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These books are many of them in between 300 and 600 libraries each, according to WorldCat. They have many of them been translated into French, Swedish, and Dutch, and some into Spanish, Finnish, Danish, Polish, Persian and Thai. this only happens with notable authors. I think this may have been a case of IDontRememberThisFromMyChildhood. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. Absent reliable sourcing that says otherwise this author's work was likely translated because they were part of otherwise notable series, not because of the supposed notability of the individual author. Having looked into this a little more I'm !voting delete because I don't believe being an author for hire on a notable book series confers notability onto the individual contractor. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2013 (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.