Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chic Cicero


 * 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 No consensus for deletion.. Navou banter 04:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Chic Cicero

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There are no third-party references here, only self-reference and websites. This is a non-notable page and looks like an attempt for advertisment and bias for an organization's president. Kephera975 06:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment More third party citations have been added. - Hogd120 Aug 5, 2007
 * Comment These citations are not third party as all of them are from references who were or are members of Chic Cicero's organization. Hogd120 is also a new user here and may be a sock puppet of IPSOS. Kephera975 18:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Appears to be a known expert in his field. But we do need verifiable sources, otherwise delete it. Faithlessthewonderboy 10:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete (which I think is what Faithless is actually voting). The article fails WP:RS as there is too much of a WP:COI between the Ciceros and Regardie. There is nothing on him in Google News Archive, but there are other books which at least mention him (as well as the Cicero and Regardie books) on Google Books, but few are really objective or substantial coverage, e.g. "Sandra Cicero, with her partner Chic Cicero, designed a new tarot deck ... but this other deck remained the standard". --Dhartung | Talk 12:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand "too much of a WP:COI between the Ciceros and Regardie". I am not aware of any conflict between the late Regardie and the Ciceros. Could you elaborate? IPSOS (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If they were "close personal friends" and edited Regardie's work, using him as a reference is suspect. I see now that his works are only cited as indications of their work, though. In any case, self-references is the biggest problem this article has. --Dhartung | Talk 16:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True enough. Though Cicero is certainly notable and belongs among Category:American occult writers. Some personal info based solely on autobiographical sources could certainly be removed, but simply the fact of being Regardie's editor who has also written his own books and continues Regardie's order is enough to establish notability. With several third-party mentions which also take this view, I fail to see how Cicero would fail to meet WP:BIO, which is the only possible reason for deletion here. IPSOS (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - nomination is retaliatory. See Talk:Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. Also, this is a published author with works published by one of the major publishers in the occult field. He is the sucessor of the previous "name" in the field, Israel Regardie. Also the nomination is incorrect, the article has third-party references which establish notability, such as the mentions in Gilbert, Greer, Suster, and Wasserman. Please read the article and don't just assume the nomination is accurate. IPSOS (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keepThird party cited material is as follows:
 * Suster quotation (1990) p 150: “By the end of the 1970’s, it appeared as though the only groups working as Golden Dawn Orders were located in New Zealand and in Georgia, USA.”
 * Wasserman quotation (2005) p 81: “The temple pictured here was constructed by Chic Cicero and consecrated by Israel Regardie in Columbus, Georgia in 1982.”
 * Greer and Kuntz quotation (1999) p. 50-51: “1977: Frater s (Chic Cicero) and his wife establish an autonomous Golden Dawn Temple in Columbus Georgia called the Isis-Urania Temple, No. 18. 1978: Frater S (Chic Cicero) begins construction of the Second Order Vault of the Adepti. Year-end: The Isis-Urania Temple, No. 18 reaches seventeen members. 1980: Frater S. (Chic Cicero) begins correspondence with Regardie. 1982: Frater S (Chic Cicero) completes construction on the Second Order Vault of the Adepti. 24 June A.MA.G. (Regardie) performs the Ceremony of the Consecration of the Vault of the Adepti. This event marks the re-establishment of a valid initiating Second Order in the United States. 25 June: A.M.A.G. (Regardie) lectures to the members of the Isis-Urania Temple, No 18 on the “Hebrew Alphabet” and “Crowley’s Relationship with Mathers.” …Year-end: Two members are initiated in the 5=6 Grade of Adeptus Minor.”
 * Greer (2003) quotation p. 205: “Several of these new Golden Dawn orders were created by friends and students of Regardie in the United States. Among these were Chic Cicero and Sandra Tabatha Cicero…” User:Hogd120
 * Strong deleteUser IPSOS is not working in good faith or within neutraility guidelines by making accusations of retaliation. User IPSOS has already made it clear that he is a supporter of Chic Cicero and his organization. See: Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega which is an article in which User IPSOS is currently violating copyright/trademark issues. The Wasserman quotation is incidental and does not go into the subject at any great length as well as the Suster quote. Suster was also a member of Chic's organization. The quotes from Regardie are from the annotated parts of those books that the Ciceros authored. The Greer and Kuntz source is biased as these are members of Chic Cicero's magickal organization. This article seems to be 95% advertisement. The biggest problems with this advertisement, with its self serving self promotion and self-reference have not been sufficiently addressed. Kephera975 17:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons given above:
 * Kephera975 18:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Wasserman is a leading member of the OTO not a GD member. He knew Israel Regardie. The Suster book pre-dates any of Cicero’s books or writings. Suster knew Israel Regardie. I don’t believe the Greers have ever stated that they are members of HOGD. And I am not IPSOS. User:Hogd120Aug.5, 2007
 * Yeah, I think it is pretty clearly a "sour grapes" nomination. It bears really looking into the sources, because things are not as the nominator claims. IPSOS (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please work in good faith. The Wasserman citation is the only one that stands then. That is not enough. As the other book was authored by Greer and Kuntz; Kuntz being a member of the organization. Suster, too, is a member. The Wasserman citation is trivial as it is only an incidental commentary on an illustration. Kephera975 20:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep this person's written some well-respected books in the field and is noteable.Merkinsmum 20:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Suster. Was. He’s dead now. He was a member of Cris Monnastre’s temple. Never knew Cicero. But Cris Monnastre knew Israel Regardie. User:Hogd120Aug.5, 2007
 * So he was a member of Cicero's organization and knew him personally. A friend even. Not very third party then, is he? You can't do all self-referencing in an article. That doesn't establish notability. Not that Cicero isn't notable in the occult community, but not in Wikipedia's standards. Kephera975 21:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Cris Monnastre ran an independent temple, both before the incorporation of HOGD, Inc. and after she either resigned or was expelled from HOGD, Inc. around 1993. Please don't try to confuse the issue with false assumptions. Association with one person cannot be used to "prove" association with another. IPSOS (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * comment the noteability of Chic Cicero can rest on his books/verifiable stuff rather than whether he knew someone.Merkinsmum 21:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * False. In order for an article to establish notability and verifiability, it must be sourced with secondary sources and third party material. Kephera975 21:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Books published by 'proper' publishers count quite a lot, I think.Merkinsmum 21:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not when it comes to bibliographies. This article is not objective. If you were to write a bibliography about yourself do you think you would be objective about it or would you paint a pretty picture of yourself? Kephera975 21:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Read my comment again. Suster never knew Cicero. Never met the man. Never communicated with him. Suster got all his info from Regardie and Monnastre. I don’t think that Mary Greer is in the HOGD or any other GD group. John Michael Greer has his own GD style group unrelated to HOGD.User:Hogd120Aug.5, 2007
 * So you may have one incidental mention by someone related to the organization in some second person way. That doesn't establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. Kephera975 21:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Seems like the first argument was: “Most of these sources are members of Chic Cicero’s group so their comments can’t be relied upon.” Now the argument is: “Most of these sources are incidental and second hand, they didn’t know Chic Cicero, so their comments can’t be relied upon.” User:Hogd120Aug.5, 2007
 * One last thing and then I will be out of here. Others, I'm sure, can make their own minds. This article is inappropriate as an encyclopedic article by the fact that it is Cicero writing about himself along with mostly buddies. This isn't an objective bibliography. Additionally, it seems that what is being argued for here is to keep the Cicero and H.O.G.D.,Incorporated(the organization of which he is the president) pages at the expense of all the rest. This is simply not in line with Wikipedia standards of NPOV and neutraility. In other words, if these two articles are kept Wikipedia would be representing one POV and one POV only. Kephera975 22:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true. If one person or group is notable and another is not, Wikipedia is not at all obligated to keep an article on one that this non-notable. NPOV is a policy that applies to a single article at a time. It doesn't apply across a group of articles like this. It is clear that you are so desperate to get certain ones delete that you hope that we will throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is simply not how it works. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. IPSOS (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't believe for a moment that Cicero wrote this article. What evidence do you have to support that? IPSOS (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment the notability of this article is tied with that of Israel Regardie and The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. Regardie is notable for his published works on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and his work to promote the continuation of that Order. Cicero was encouraged by and received Regardie's blessing to continue the work of the Order under the banner of The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. This recognition extended to Cicero being chosen to edit Regardie's works by Regardie's publisher, Llewellyn Publications. Regardless of the notability of other G.D. type orders, this one is notable by virtue of these facts. IPSOS (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment this org's primacy as the successors of regardie is not believed by everyone. As I understand it no org has definite succession, and dozens claim it.  Just so any readers who don't know anything about the GD know:)  I've not heard of any org being irrefutably able to claim succession over the others.  This is irrelevant to Chic Cicero being noteable though, which he is through his books etc.Merkinsmum 23:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, the fact that Llewellyn Publications continues to follow Regardie's choice with respect to editors of his works is very strong evidence in my opinion. The disputes generated by other organizations are simply designed to get attention. Their arguments all fall apart on close examination. IPSOS (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment hi Ippy just to say that I don't particularly know cicero from him being an editor of regardie's work- I knew him for his book http://www.amazon.com/Self-Initiation-Into-Golden-Dawn-Tradition/dp/1567181368 which to me is more noteable than him being an editor for other's work. To be noteable I think he needs to have made a mark for himself a bit independently from his just editing works of Israel Regardie.  And to me with that book he did, because while it was based on the G.D. it was his own work.  It was a bit controversial and noteable at the time due to encouraging magickians to self-initiate (which not everyone agreed with) and I knew of magickians knowing it and using it.  I know you think it noteable that he has edited some editions of regardie's books- but he is also an author in his own right and that makes him more noteable to those who aren't into the politics of the orgs.  This AfD is about whether he's noteable in his own right, independent of his order (which has it's own article) and of Regardie (who has one too.)  I think he's written his own ideas himself and they've been published by a publisher independent from him (not self published) and that's grounds for noteability if he's had quite a few books published.  These sources may be too flakey for most wiki articles though similar ones are sometimes used to back up lesser known topics - (sorry if this is comment is not pertinent for other editors reading:))  I just meant to say that he has written his own works too.Merkinsmum 16:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to explain my source posted- was not about him being described in a 3rd party source, but to show that at that point there was a bit of controversy about the book's ideas too which makes his works slightly more noteworthy.Merkinsmum 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment oh, I completely agree with you that he has independently established himself as a writer. My point was that both Cicero and his Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. are notable. Really more apropos on the other AfD, I guess. IPSOS (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Flunks WP:BIO. THF 23:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - this article is much more well-referenced than most articles that show up at AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I've said delete on all the related articles mentioned above. It is appropriate however to keep one, and the one about the person would seem to be the best. it is at least free from the ambiguity and POV problems about the various interlinked and often hostile organisations. DGG (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per AllGloryToTheHypnotoad and DGG. GlassFET 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously a notable author. If someone has a problem with a particular fact within an article, that's no reason to delete the entire article. Improve it or leave it alone. Rosencomet 16:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.