User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-24894325-20191010230026
If the issue of Arcbeatle Press being a self-publisher is not relevant, why was it mentioned in the OP? At any rate, what is or is not relevant for a debate should be determined by an admin who has not participated in the unresolved inclusion debates on the topic. The same goes for what has or has not been established. Until an admin closes it, everything stated here is a matter of opinion of participants rather than a matter of wiki-wide policy.
@Scrooge MacDuck: What you call "[my] very narrow legalese definition" and "[my] lawyerspeak" is not actually mine. It is the accepted term of the US publishing industry, as explained by Bowker, the source of professional bibliographic information in the US (and beyond). Let me repeat the quote: "If a self-publisher wants to be identified as the publisher, the self-publisher must get their own ISBN."
KDP, used by Arcbeatle Press, concurs:
Self-publish eBooks and paperbacks for free with Kindle Direct Publishing, and reach millions of readers on Amazon.
...
Get started today! Self-publish with KDP for free.
Here is a quote from a book on the legal aspects of self-publishing (emphasis is the author's):
...if you use one of CreateSpace's free ISBNs, then the publisher of your book will be listed as CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, which is like screaming that you are a self-publishing novice.
The majority of Arcbeatle books (10 out of 13) are published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Scrooge MacDuck is right in asking how one should call Arcbeatle Press if not a "self-publisher". It is not the publisher of Arcbeatle books because that title is determined by their ISBNs. If neither a publisher nor self-publisher, then who?
On a side note, to flag statements and arguments that have not been supported by any valid sources, Borisashton claims that "Arcbeatle is a company". Firstly, Arcbeatle is an alias of James Wylder, who is a person not a company. Unless it was a Freudian slip, I suspect that Borisashton meant "Arcbeatle [Press] is a company". I was not able to find any confirmation of this fact. What valid sources exist to determine that Arcbeatle Press is indeed a company and not a so-called fictitious business name?
Here is another voice in support of Arcbeatle books being self-published (emphasis mine):
The world Wylder operates in seems to have become more simplistic on the surface since the advent of self-publishing and print-on-demand websites–both things that he uses–but it has also become more complex for the same reasons.
...
Though he would like to stay a self-publisher for purposes of integrity and solidarity to a community increasingly guided by the whims of a select few industry titans, Wylder understands there is still a game to be played and that game has rules.
"When I was much younger I was more 'I’m going to do everything myself.' I still like doing that, but I’m starting to get to the point where doing all of the work of self-publishing seems exhausting," he said...
As you can see, as recently as in 2017, while preparing his 9th book, James Wylder was clear about being a self-publisher. Note also that there is no mention of Arcbeatle Press in this whole interview. As I mentioned before, I was not able to find any information about Arcbeatle Press as a legal entity, including when it was established. However, its Facebook page [3] was created no later than May 2016, thus, predating the interview by more than a year. It is highly unusual that the owner of a company that, by 2017, had purportedly been publishing books for 4 years, that this owner would be giving an interview about an upcoming book and yet would never mention the company or his status as its owner. Instead, he professes hopes to achieve exactly the opposite of owning a publishing company:
And hopefully, [James Wylder] said, he will work more with major publishing houses in the future.
Of course, plans for the future can change. But past---less so. By 2017, James Wylder, in his own words, has self-published eight books and was promoting the ninth. His modus operandi has not changed since 2017. He was and remains a self-publisher.
Finally, if, instead of using professional commercial terminology, the proposal is to use layman's terms, specifically those from "America's most trusted online dictionary" (in Scrooge MacDuck's unattributed quote), then here is another definition that should be accepted:
Fan fiction - stories involving popular fictional characters that are written by fans and often posted on the Internet.
According to this proposal, the three stories under consideration are clearly outside the scope of the wiki by T:NO FANFIC. I myself do not particularly like this definition. But if consensus is reached on accepting definitions from Merriam-Webster over professional terms, then this debate can be closed without much ado.
UPD: It was later pointed out by Borisashton that the unattributed quote was by him rather than by Scrooge MacDuck. Apologies for the unintended misquotation.
