Talk:Rodney Orpheus/Archive 1

Bio
Start of bio. I don't feel happy contributing my own bio, but at least it's a start. I'll try to make sure there are as many references as possible to support the assertions. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * References need to be from reliable third party sources. Lame Name (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried to keep to this policy throughout the article, since I feel pretty weird editing my own bio in the first place... that's why almost every line has a third-party source referenced. If there's a specific source you think isn't reliable, please point it out, I'll be happy to change it (or have someone else change it) --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead section
The opening lead section needs to be a brief summary of the article.... Who the subject is, what the subject does that is notable. The details follow in the body of the article. Lame Name (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, hopefully it's now improved. I really appreciate your feedback BTW, it's very helpful --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability
To make sure this falls within notability guidelines, I've been following this advice: We want to include an article on an author that has published widely read books or articles, even if there are no independent published works about that person and the only information about them is the list of what they have published. (Articles on authors comprise both biography and bibliography sections. Even if the former cannot be populated from sources, the latter can.) Therefore our people notability and inclusion criteria comprise secondary criteria that ensure that authors who have published widely read books/articles are included. ...

When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write.

So, for example, if you are writing about yourself or about a family member, then use independent biographies as sources, not your own autobiography.

Accordingly I've added a (partial) bibliography and discography, and made sure that biographical details are supported by third-party articles as much as possible. Any additions would be very welcome. PLease let me know if I've erred in any way with the sources referenced. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Refs
The likes of Google Groups are not reliable sources and the Rodney Orpheus website should be avoided apart from a single external link so as to maintain a neutral point of view. I will get around to boldly editing the article down to a couple of paragraphs of verifiable and notable content one day. Lame Name (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Google Groups link is an archive of postings from Steve Jackson Games that refer to the work cited in order to verify the publication date. The link to the work on the rodneyorpheus.com page is there because the original article is no longer available from Steve Jackson Games - the link can be taken out if you wish, but the piece is still part of the bibliography, and I added it for the sake of completeness.


 * As regards Verifibility, WP:V states that:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.


 * I've tried to stick closely to that, but I welcome any improvements that can be made.


 * As regards Notability, WP:MUS says that criteria for Notability includes:

"# Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)."


 * which the Discography shows is exceeded by a significant margin; so surely Notability should not be in question?


 * Also, I don't understand the reference to "notable content" - as I understand it, Wikipedia notability guidelines refer only to whether the subject of the article is notable or not, and not to the content of the article. Or have I missed something? --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would want to start from Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact; from which (my emphasis)..."Our goal is to accurately reproduce the opinions of others, which should be sourced and cited." So notable in the sense that someone else has noted the event.   The article reads at best like a CV and at worst mere puffery.  The discography mostly belongs in the The Cassandra Complex article the technical / creative adviser type credits would not warrant a mention without some coverage elsewhere.


 * My version.... In a band. Wrote a couple of books.  Involved with Ordo Templi Orientis. Succession of jobs now a lecturer in a small town college.
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  Lame Name (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Merge/Redirect
Better served by either merging articles or redirecting one into the other.


 * Not justification was stated, but assuming it's WP:Notability my comments (opposed) are available under 'Notability versus Vanity Page'. A merge/redirect would require a formal justification, however. - Rushyo  Talk  17:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability versus Vanity Page
I agree. This is a vanity page and needs to redirect with Cassandra Complex.

[User:Theseus1776|Theseus1776]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theseus1776 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Still not notable. Sorry. Cassandra Complex, yes, very notable. Rodney however, is no more notable than Jez Willis, who also doesn't merit a page and just gets a redirect.

Thelema stuff should redirect to the Thelma project. Rodney's contribution isn't notable. Very Sorry.

I suspect this is fruitless because you'll want to put this page up regardless. A good rule of thumb for notability is if you have to write your own bio, your aren't notable.

beetlehive


 * Given that the article has been previously deleted for a lack of notability nothing, in a notability sense, has changed. The little that can be scraped together as verifiable here could be included in a brief paragraph in the Cassandra Complex article. The rest is nothing more than unencyclopaedic trumpery that has no place in Wikipedia. Lame Name (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The previous AfD holds limited weight since very few people actually took part in building a consensus, so it makes sense to look at it again. If we check it against WP:BIO :- Note that any single one of these is required:


 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

If not an important figure then certainly widely cited, from my interpretation. Which leads on to:


 * Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

A 'cult' following is perfectly acceptable. Doesn't have to be a wide audience, correct?


 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Clearly his works (the bands) and himself have been subject to articles and reviews.


 * Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Depends on the interpretation of 'productions', but this isn't much in doubt.

Now for WP:MUSIC:


 * Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.

Music reviews, occult publications... both are covered.

To me this seems like a relatively conservative interpretation of the evidence available. Of the various criteria which establishes notability, ONLY ONE needs to be met. This seems to have been far, far exceeded by the evidence to hand and I have to express that I'm perplexed as to how you could come to an alternative interpretation.

I cannot see how he can possibly fail notability 'guidelines'. As he stated, he is aware of WP:AUTO and edited it in good faith. If it is a vanity article it should be held to be so on its own merits, not simply because it is discouraged by guidelines.

I think as a base for developing a neutral, well-cited article on a notable party this is a decent base; of similar quality as I would expect from any uninterested party - in fact, of far higher quality than fan service would provide!

"The likes of Google Groups are not reliable sources"

The messages are digitally signed by the parties, allowing them to be traced back to the parties which stated them. It is a simple matter to verify they are staff on the project and their statements were official. Consider why they are generally not considered reliable. Now consider why digital signing gets around those issues.

That said, the same text can easily be referenced to Autoduel Quarterly and Pyramid Magazine, which are reliable sources.

"Thelema stuff should redirect to the Thelma project. Rodney's contribution isn't notable. Very Sorry."

The founder of an O.T.O. Lodge isn't notable? Member of the Supreme Grand Council? I don't think there's any scope for notability beyond that.

His role in the O.T.O. was significant enough for Kerrang, a significant and otherwise uninvolved party.

"I will get around to boldly editing the article down to a couple of paragraphs of verifiable and notable content one day."

It is interesting how you have decided what the article will look like before you even begin editing! I suspect this demonstrates bias and I would suggest that if you have a pre-planned agenda before editing the page you should leave it up to another party to do so.

Approaching this constructively, it seems the major concern is the issue of verfiability. However it should be considered that cult sources are perfectly acceptable for verifiability in the same manner as a popular publication. Just because the layman doesn't read them, does not mean they cannot be cited.

To assert again: IGN, Kerrang, O.T.O., TWF, DTS press releases, IMBD... are eminently stalwart sources. Like most articles developed predominantly by one party, some of the sources lack authority but there seems plenty of scope to replace them or, indeed, remove them until better sources can be found. Regardless, I certainly do not see a justification for deletion at this point. Rushyo  Talk  16:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rushyo. It was good of you to venture out of retirement to share your thoughts on this matter. Notability needs to be based on independent third party sources and explicitly excludes press releases and articles where the subject talks about himself. Also excluded as sources are database based information that can be edited by anyone, such as Wikipedia and IMDb.  As stated above the band would be notable but Orpheus would struggle to achieve notability in any sphere.  Reliable sources require considerably more editorial rigour than that provided with Google Docs or a mate's blog. Neither of which make the grade as a reliable source.  I do resent your charge of bias. I have been involved with the article since Orpheus first decided to remove the original redirect and write this self serving piece about himself.  My opinion has been consistent throughout but I have patiently waited for something significant to be added. I am still waiting.  As we approach this article's first birthday, with nothing of merit to celebrate, it is surely time for the redirect to be reestablished with a paragraph in the Cassandra Complex article describing Orpheus and his various jobs. Lame Name (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * None of which have any relevance to the Cassandra Complex. The issue from my perspective is that pretty much each of these positions alone holds notability. Other religious leaders have their own pages, why not this one? Only the person needs to be notable and only for one thing, not each and every fact on their page! Are Einstein's marriages notable? What about Keanu Reeves's house purchasing habits? Of course not. But they are associated with a person who meets the criteria for notability.


 * "and write this self serving piece about himself"


 * Not an issue since we Assume good faith. Although some of the sources don't meet WP:V, undoubtedly, that is true of most pages on WP in my experience and I would argue this is actually quite a good article for what it is. If you do not like the state of the article then do, of course, by all means: be bold if you can maintain an NPOV.


 * All I assert is that there is no criteria for an AfD and, by extension, a merge/redirect. Notability - that is meeting one of the wide range of criteria available - is easily satisfied as laid out above and regarding the issue of source quality: the person in question has been asking for constructive critical analysis of the article. If they bother you so much you are more than welcome to productively remove and (where possible) replace them. Simply hovering above the article in the vain of a vulture waiting for an opportunity to call a natural death doesn't provide any productive service to Wikipedia.


 * At the same time, many of the sources are quality, verifiable sources of the sort which many articles lack. Thus I cannot visualise a charge on which the article was a whole could fail WP:V but only elements of it. These can be addressed and dealt with. I'm intrigued as to why they haven't already, given the party in question has even specifically asked for such critique.


 * "It was good of you to venture out of retirement to share your thoughts on this matter."


 * As I have an active interest in the occult, sound engineering, music production, games design and Steve Jackson games, it seemed a logical place to begin. - Rushyo  Talk  06:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)