Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew D. Chumbley

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Reineke (talk | contribs) at 12:12, 24 September 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Andrew D. Chumbley

Andrew D. Chumbley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Notability disputed, see Talk:Andrew_D._Chumbley#Notability Denial 06:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've read through the article, and discussion that OP linked. While I understand the OP concern about the depth of the references, it is possible to pass WP:N with trivial or marginal depth in individual articles provided there is a significant quantity of them. Article's subject has enough low grade mentions in what op agreed is a peer-reviewed journal to pass this standard in my opinion. Argument about price of his books in resale market doesn't appear to be an exaggeration. (>$1000 for Qutub on ABE). This is indicative of someone whose notability may be lasting. Looking at past notable occultists, his volume of published work seems reasonable. He passes notability now, albeit barely, based on journal coverage and it appears his work will have a lasting impact in his field. Horrorshowj 08:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I find sufficient indicia of notability in the talkpage discussions, and per some of Horrorshowj's points. Further editing of the article is in order, but that is not a deletion criterion. Newyorkbrad 12:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge from the company, above, per Newyorkbrad. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Some of the editors might not know that the supposed references are not not legit. What has happened in this article is closer to a hagiography.SecondlyThe editors of the Chumbley article have taken the work of other people out of context to create an impression of Chumbley that sits ill with reality. An example of this is the editors stating Chumbleys occupation has a Magican. Can someone explain to me how someones occupation can be a magician? That will be interesting. Another point is that the present editors have an agenda in creating a profile for Chumbley that is out of proportion to his actual work . The references used to make Chumbley "appear" to be a "influential" occultist all come from articles by people who were not in a position to say how competent Chumbley was in his writing, and his ideas. Also the issue over using references from Hutton are dubious. Chumbley went out of his way to make a name for himself by courting hutton to be included in his papers. In this context Chumbley was sellling himself to Hutton.Hutton is a Historian. He is not a position to pass comment on whether Chumbley was a legitimate occultist.Also the references using Michael Howard are dishonest. Howard was a "student" of Chumbley and used his Cauldron fanzine to give a biased platform for Chumbley. To me this is nothing more than a hagiography in that context. A fair percentage of the references are very poor which dont back up the notability view. In the occult scene for notability to be accepted it has to been shown his work has been of original composition and have a genuine link to a spiritual link. Chumbley had neither. His work was plagiarism at best and vanity projects at worst. To put this in context look at the lack of material for the Kenneth Grant wiki article. Grant has been the major influence in Occultism for the last 30- 40 years. But yet his article is thread bare. In this context the Chumbley article is probably been edited by "students " of Chumbley who are seeking to make Chumbley something he is not, an occultist of notability. An example is the earlier mentioned use of the term magician. I put forward the motion that the article be deleted so that it can be started again with different editors from scratch, who wont turn the article into a shrine and advertisement for Chumbley. Compare the article to other notable occultist articles ( Gardner , Grant, Crowley etc.) and you will see the differnce in tone and accountability. If this article is kept in its present form then wikipedia editorial will be seen is inadequate and lightweight. Has far has i know historical revisionism isnt accepted in accounts of dead people. Why should Wikipedia accept this for the Chumbley article. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.126.158 (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.
Problems with tone of the article are grounds for cleanup not deletion. Your first argument seems to be a belief that subject was an incompetent occultist, however being good at something isn't required to meet notability. You appear to personally dislike the articles subject, which again isn't a valid reason for deletion. Cauldron articles weren't used to assign notability, as they were written by the subject. I agree that the article needs cleanup, but do you have an actual policy based argument for deletion? Establishing lack of "genuine link to a spiritual link" is a little hard by wp standards.Horrorshowj 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for about a year now this anonymous editor has been making fairly colourful statements about how much he despises Chumbley and how childish the other editors are, from a variety of IP addresses (occasionally he logs in as User:Redblossom). His above comments you will find repeated ad nauseam through the talk page history along with my repeated, failed attempts to engage him in meaningful conversation and find out what on earth he's on about... Fuzzypeg☻ 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep if you consider it hagiographical, NPOV it, don't delete. This is/was a very well known occultist. As to his career as a 'magickian' what is meant is that he engaged in magical pursuits himself, then as a writer, wrote them up in the form of books and articles.Merkinsmum 20:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to it having to be proven that Chumbley had a 'spiritual link', that is impossible to prove or disprove as all spiritual things are, except to a believer. What matters is he wrote books, stuff was written about his work, he appeared as a speaker, and others were inspired by him and have written that they have been.Merkinsmum 20:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh at the 'anon ip' editor, I'm just reading the comment some more. If he dislikes the tone of the article he can change it immediately, it doesn't have to be deleted. Does whoever-it-is not realise that the same group of editors plus others who find there way there, will edit the article if it's restarted?Merkinsmum 20:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - as I've contributed to the article I think that's the only fair position.
I'll point out that in reponse to POV criticisms from Redblossom (and his other identities) I have repeatedly suggested that he make changes to the article as he sees fit, which can then be discussed if needful; I have also offered to make the changes myself in according with his direction, sentence by sentence, even word by word! No changes or complaints specific to the text have been forthcoming, only criticisms in the most general terms. As exemplified by the anonymous posting above.
Following on from Merkinsmum's comment above: if the article is deleted and then started up again, I won't be taking a lead on it! Just confirming that - in answer to some unjustified allegations about my NPOV. Possesion of specialist knowledge about, and enthusiasm for, the subject does not make me or anyone else by default a student/disciple/follower/hagiographer. Thanks all! reineke 12:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_D._Chumbley&oldid=159997112"