Content deleted Content added
Geoffspear (talk | contribs) →[[Philip H. Farber]]: "unverified" |
→[[Philip H. Farber]]: reply |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:'''Question''' - To [[User:Geoffspear|Geoffrey Spear]]: How can unverified works "look verifiable"? I guess I'm asking how does an unverifed work have to look to "look verifiable"? [[User:GBYork|GBYork]] 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC) |
:'''Question''' - To [[User:Geoffspear|Geoffrey Spear]]: How can unverified works "look verifiable"? I guess I'm asking how does an unverifed work have to look to "look verifiable"? [[User:GBYork|GBYork]] 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
:: Mu. The works are not "unverified"; they clearly exist. [[User:Geoffspear|Geoffrey Spear]] 12:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC) |
:: Mu. The works are not "unverified"; they clearly exist. [[User:Geoffspear|Geoffrey Spear]] 12:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
::: '''Reply''' [[User:Geoffspear|Geoffrey Spear]], you misunderstand. Wikipedia policy is that every article must pass [[WP:V]], the goal of which is verifiabilty not truth. The fact you can see the book with your eyes (or whatever you mean by "looking") is not the same a verifing its existance through citing reliable unbiased third party sources. Seeing the book as a means of verification is OR and is unacceptable per [[WP:OR]]. You seem to be using OR when you say it looks verifiable. [[User:GBYork|GBYork]] 13:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete'''. Borderline but ultimately non-notable writer. [[User:Wikipediatrix|wikipediatrix]] 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. Borderline but ultimately non-notable writer. [[User:Wikipediatrix|wikipediatrix]] 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
* '''Keep''' published author. Presenter at organizations with articles already? What's the issue? Keep this one. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC) |
* '''Keep''' published author. Presenter at organizations with articles already? What's the issue? Keep this one. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:25, 23 August 2006
Philip H. Farber
Interested party removed prod (see article history) claiming author was notable but without adding sources to article. As of now his main claim to notability is that he has been a frequent presenter at the Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium, run by the Association for Consciousness Exploration. You guys decide. Mattisse(talk) 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note - nominator has an active complaint against her from two parties on WP:AN/I for inappropriate tagging, prodding, etc. over two separate vendettas she is conducting, one against pagan authors, so yes, this is relevant. -999 (Talk) 18:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Response: That is a blatant ad hominem argument. This is meant to be an impartial discussion on the article's mertits in accordance with Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines. Your opinion of the nominator's character has no place here. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 17:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- And now you have an "active complaint" against you on AN/I as well... If you want to save the article, do so with an argument on its merits, not a veiled personal attack. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that the subject's notability is probably borderline does not change the fact that the nomination was made in bad faith. Disclosure: I did not write the article, but simply stumbled on the tagging and prodding spree because she hit an older more established article on my watchlist. -999 (Talk) 20:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - published author whose works are listed in article and are available from Amazon.com -999
- My Aunt's cookbook is available from Amazon also, but that doesn't make her notable. Amazon will sell anything if you slap a bar code on it. wikipediatrix (Talk) 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I'd say being frequently asked to be a presenter at two fairly large neo-pagan gatherings makes him notable enough in his area of expertise. His published works look verifiable to me, too.-Geoffrey Spear 18:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Question - To Geoffrey Spear: How can unverified works "look verifiable"? I guess I'm asking how does an unverifed work have to look to "look verifiable"? GBYork 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Mu. The works are not "unverified"; they clearly exist. Geoffrey Spear 12:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply Geoffrey Spear, you misunderstand. Wikipedia policy is that every article must pass WP:V, the goal of which is verifiabilty not truth. The fact you can see the book with your eyes (or whatever you mean by "looking") is not the same a verifing its existance through citing reliable unbiased third party sources. Seeing the book as a means of verification is OR and is unacceptable per WP:OR. You seem to be using OR when you say it looks verifiable. GBYork 13:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Mu. The works are not "unverified"; they clearly exist. Geoffrey Spear 12:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Borderline but ultimately non-notable writer. wikipediatrix 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep published author. Presenter at organizations with articles already? What's the issue? Keep this one. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Wikipediatrix. Only generates like 760 hits on Google. --Nishkid64 20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Slightly meets a criteria of BIO. Allow for expansion. SynergeticMaggot 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Which criteria? How slightly? wikipediatrix 21:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per several. Atlant 22:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per 999 and Geoffspear. —Hanuman Das 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per wikipediatrix as lacking proof of author's notability through verifiable reliable sources. Footnotes 1 & 2 in the article go to New York Times best seller lists that do not mention his name or his books. Footnote 3 goes to his personal website. Footnote 4 goes to Maybe Logic academy faculty where he is listed as a faculty member. Footnote 5 goes to Starwood Festival 2005 list of speakers where he is listed as a speaker. The Reference section is a repeat of the last 3 footnotes. GBYork 14:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Go look at the books themselves. Chronicles of the 20th Century and Chronicles of America had dozens of contributors and only the editors were listed on the cover. The citations were a response to someone who requested citations that the books were on the NYT best-seller list. They were. -999 (Talk) 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BIO--MONGO 18:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Being a contributor to the "Chronicle Of The 20th Century" and "Chronicle of America" is not the same as being a New York Times best-selling author. Having flipped through the "Chronicle Of The 20th Century" years ago it is in essence a single-volume encyclopedia (with 30 contributors as stated on Amazon), not something you can become famous for having contributed to. Unique Google hits for (FutureRitual Farber review) = 111 of about 430 [1]. There doesn't seem to be any reviews of FutureRitual in any notable press publications, only DIY reviews like those found on online bookshops. Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (people) as an author since his major work doesn't pass Wikipedia:Notability (books) -- Netsnipe (Talk) 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete: The author seems to be well known in a fringe group. His higher profile exposure is pretty minimal. More to the point, the article suggests merely that he writes about magic (with a k, of course) and then lists places he goes. This really tells us very little about why he would be known. The author might squeak by the line, but the article doesn't. Geogre 19:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Only one of his two books is in the Library of Congress, and they only have one copy; this reflects poorly on the impact of his authorship. Also, I'm not coming up with external media coverage. Seems like he might be an interesting guy if he hangs out with Genesis P-Orridge, but he just isn't sufficiently notable. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeesh! I missed the Throbbing Gristle connection. "Interesting" is one way of describing Genesis Porridge, I guess. Geogre 01:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)