Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber

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 - tonnes of single purpose accounts saying 'keep' — FireFox ^(talk) _{16:42, 29 August 2006}

Philip H. Farber

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Reply How can you read the nominator's mind to determine her motivation? Even you say that the subject's notability is probably borderline, so how is that a bad faith nomination? That seems exactly the type of article that should go to afd. Further, the article's history indicates that the original author, Rosencomet, made just one intial entry and has not touched it since. Yet 14 of the 16 subsequent content-related entries (I'm including changing the article's name here) have been made by you, 999 (Talk), on a subject of borderline notability at best. So although you are not the creator, you are the major editor of the article. GBYork 14:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that the subject's notability is probably borderline makes me wonder how you could possibly have a basis to question the good faith of the nomination. If you have an issue about the nominator's good faith, start an RFC. And if you don't consider this enough to merit an RFC, then it isn't enough to merit comment here, either. - Jmabel | Talk 03:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• KeepKeep and Expand. 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) Per GBYork, changing to "Keep and Expand"; article needs expansion to cite verified sources for every word in the article. Geoffrey Spear 14:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mu. The works are not "unverified"; they clearly exist. Geoffrey Spear 12:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reply Actually, for the first book cited in the article, I take the fact that librarians at 10 OCLC-affiliated libraries (Including the Library of Congress and New York Public Library) claim to own a copy of the book as verification. Granted, the second does seem to have been published by a vanity press. I've never personally seen a copy of either book to verify their existence through original research. Geoffrey Spear 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply So you have found a reliable unbiased source for that "fact" and cited it in the article? Read Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!)'s statements below on the Library of Congress reason for his Delete vote. GBYork 14:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - No, I haven't made any edits whatsoever to the article in question, and I certainly don't feel compelled to make edits to support my position in an AfD. Geoffrey Spear 14:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Then you are missing the point of WP:V which is a non negotiable requirement for all articles. It's what is actually in the article that counts, not what you know in your head. Remember: verifiablity not truth is the guiding principle. GBYork 14:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Borderline but ultimately non-notable writer. wikipediatrix 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Delete as per Wikipediatrix. Only generates like 760 hits on Google. --Nishkid64 20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Slightly meets a criteria of BIO. Allow for expansion. SynergeticMaggot 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which criteria? How slightly? wikipediatrix 21:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per several. Atlant 22:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 999 and Geoffspear. —Hanuman Das 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO--MONGO 18:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Yeesh! I missed the Throbbing Gristle connection. "Interesting" is one way of describing Genesis Porridge, I guess. Geogre 01:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, not notable. TomTheHand 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete who?--I'll bring the food 14:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's an innovative author, widely published as a journalist, apart from his books. Very well known in NLP, hypnosis and magick communities - in fact, one of the top presenters on these subjects internationally.

— Possible single purpose account: Foolio93 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep I don't care whether he's the current incarnation of the Horned One (Pagan) or the Horned One (Judeo-Christian). As long as he has something even partially original to say that doesn't involve unnecessarily insulting anyone and has some merit to someone, the entry deserves to stay. "Notability" is irrelevant. The only yardstick that matters is credibility, which in turn is based on the verifiable results of other people investigating his statements for themselves. Credibility should not rest on his social circle, or taste in clothes, or how much he makes from his "day job".

— Possible single purpose account: Thausgt (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep He's a great author with some unique ideas. I'd enjoy reading more about him. --Corwin8 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally beside the point of human existance....how we think and process and interact in our reality systems? How those belief systems cross over each other and affect evolutionary changes in culture and thought? Ridiculous! And lets go ahead and delete that Joseph Campbell guy too. What the heck is he going on about?71.74.199.30 07:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Thomas[reply]
• Comment - Hope no one is losing sight of the fact that Wikipedia is aiming to be an encyclopedia. The last five voters seem to have lost track of the non negotiable requirement for all articles, WP:V and appear to be voicing personal reactions rather than an objective evaluation of the article's success or failure in meeting the required Wikipedia criteria. NLOleson 12:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop trying to influence the outcome of the survey. -999 (Talk) 16:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey, 999 (Talk). You totally eliminated my note under the nomination. What's with that? Is that allowed? Mattisse(talk) 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please use people's talk pages to communicate with them, not this AfD. Thanks. —Hanuman Das 19:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've read his work and googled NLP, his name turned up almost as often as Richard Bandler's. Phil's work is very interesting and important on different levels. He takes into account the esoteric, but also says it can be dismissed for purposes of trying out his work without those particular mental conditionings. He writes for both the lay man and the scientific commnunity. Its not easy to explain NLP to people, but I always recommend looking up Phil's work when people ask me what NLP is about. beatrix216.194.56.15 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Phill has been active in publishing on the subject of NLP and Magick for over 10 years now. He was an Early adopter of the web as a form of online publication with the webzine Paradign Shift in the early 90's. He also has participated as a speeker at several national conferences on Hypnosis and NLP. His books are real and only his early works were published by a small press out of chicago called eschaton books. They still have a web site http://www.eschatonbooks.com/, though I think they may not be doing much these days. His works have been endorsed by the Likes of Robert Anton Willson and Genesis P. Orridge - Brendan Merritt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.246.144.78 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep, I've heard of him and the article appears to have been much improved and more verifiable since the nomination. Looks like it can be brought up to WP standards. Ekajati 13:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC
• Philip Farber deserves his place here. His published books and live workshops constitute a further evolution of Milton Erickson and Robert Anton Wilson. Pretty important and valid work. m2141.149.107.140 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 14:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please elaborate. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  18:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability standards (as I understand them) are fairly subjective, this person seems to meet mine. Paul August ☎ 22:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ekajati. —Gurunath 18:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If his notability in NLP even vaguely approaches Bandler's, there is nothing in the article to bear that out. - Jmabel | Talk 22:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of course he's notable. Just because it can't be proved is no reason to vote against him. Besides the article doesn't say anything anyway. You say he is not notable just because the references in the article are stupid. That is discriminating against Farber because he didn't write the article. Gjeatman 09:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: Gjeatman (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep per 999 and Geoffspear and Hanuman Das. AgastNeey 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: AgastNeey (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep. I don't think there's any reason to question it anymore, now that his listing has been beefed up. I'm sure more data will be added as time goes on, too. He has several DVDs out on Magical, Psychological and Entheogenic topics, and has appeared far more widely than has been expressed here so far. I believe he may have more writings than listed here as well. If not, he will in the near future. I think he's a keeper. RosencometRosencomet 16:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Farber is an interesting figure in the Aquarian movement; the combination of NLP and magickal techniques alone is significant. I note that today's "Featured Article" on the Wikipedia Homepage is about "Illuminatus Triology" - and given Farber's association with Robert Anton Wilson this alone would indicate he's Wikipedia-worthy.

— Possible single purpose account: Ricrya (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Comment: I still don't have a vote either way, but I'd be a lot more impressed if the people arguing for a keep would turn this into an informative article that I could easily see reasons for keeping, rather than question the good faith of the nominator, or add search results to the article as "references". - Jmabel | Talk 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it's going to be kept anyway. No consensus... —Hanuman Das 03:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Myles Long 23:11, 28 August 2006 (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.