Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Michael Kraig


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure)  TheSpecialUser TSU 03:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Donald Michael Kraig

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. The article has been triple-tagged for various problems for over three years, but notability has never been established. The article was written principally by notorious wikispammer Rosencomet, who edits primarily to enhance the financial interests of his Starwood Festival; thus, he writes promotional articles about all of the non-notable people who have appeared there. The discography section of this article is particularly bad. I was going to delete it as purely promotional, but I want everyone to see that the recordings are put out by ACE, which is Rosencomet's personal company. In fact, the URL for ACE is rosencomet.com. Doing that sort of thing is the epitome of bad-faith editing. Qworty (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, Qworty doesn't know what he is talking about. I have no "financial interest" in ACE, because it makes no money. My involvement in its activities is totally voluntary, and actually costs me thousands of dollars a year. His constant reprinting of items from 5 or 6 years ago when I first began editing is rather pathetic. Please judge the subject's notability based on his own characteristics, rather than Qworty's obsession with my history.Rosencomet (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per WP:AUTHOR, if the author's works are not worthy of notice, it is very likely that the author isn't notable either. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  14:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  14:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The only thing Kraig published that approaches notability is the "Forward" to the Facts on File library reference book Magic and Alchemy (2006). Kraig's best-selling book is his first one, Modern Magick: Eleven Lessons in the High Magickal Arts (1988), but I'm unable to find any reviews. His appearances on talk radio shows are interesting but those shows by design have fringe guests, so in a way those appearances count against notability, or at least not inherently towards it. Kraig has done many many things, but I can't find any reliable independent sources that discuss those things in a way that signify notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep He has published six books with a non-vanity publisher.  The following non-vanity books (among others) all mention him or his work as an influence: The Continuum Complete International Encyclopedia of Sexuality by Raymond J. Noonan, Italian Witchcraft: The Old Religion of Southern Europe by Raven Grimassi, The Practical Psychic Self Defense Handbook: A Survival Guide by Robert Bruce, 10-Minute Magic Spells: Conjure Love, Luck, and Money in an Instant by Skye Alexander.  Also, innumerable self-published titles mention him.  Yes, he writes about a fringe subject("magick"), but its a popular one, and he seems to be one of the best-known authors.    Th e S te ve   06:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just checked these four sources. The Italian is published by Llewellyn the same publisher Kraig uses thus not independent. Two are bibliography entries. The last "10-minute magic" has two 1-sentence quotes by Kraig but doesn't say anything about Kraig. None of the books are what you would call academic or neutral on the subject. I have no problem with "magick", they are basically authors who write fiction in-universe (merging fiction and reality). We should treat them like any other genre of this type like the science-fiction based Dianetics and Scientology for example is very notable outside the world of Scientology. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad on the biblios. The examples were meant to show his influence on the genre through his writing, and were only a small sample of the many books he's mentioned in.  I'm surprised there aren't more reviews of his books, considering how often other authors refer to them.   Llewellyn Worldwide specializes in occult publications, so it isn't surprising that authors he's influenced often have the same publisher he does.    Th e S te ve   11:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. In my opinion he meetsWP:CREATIVE as a person who is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors and is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Yes, OK, it's in a wierd subject, but his entry in Raven Grimassi's significant "Encyclopedia of Wicca and Witchcraft"  is an indication of his importance among his peers. Regarding Qworty's statement about the discography, it isn't actually against the rules for the owner of the record company to write the discography, as this is purely factual (he did cut those records on that label). Claiming that they were the best thing since The Beatles would be promotional. Also, referring to that RfAR from 2007, when Rosencomet (a) wasn't sanctioned and (b) was instead sent round at the time to remove any spam, seems a tad unnecessary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Encyclopedia of Wicca and Witchcraft" is published by Llewellyn Worldwide, the same publisher Kraig uses for Modern Magick. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, but secondary sourcing does not necessarily need to be completely independed of the subject. The whole Llewellyn publishing thing is faintly incestuous, but like it or not pretty much all the key authors are or were published by them at one point. What would really help is if anyone has access to older review sources that might exist only on paper that would nail it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BASIC says secondary sources need to be "intellectually independent of each other". I agree the "Llewellyn publishing thing is faintly incestuous".  -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Donald Michael Kraig's books Modern Magick and Modern Sex Magick are generally considered classics in the field. His many fields of expertise - Ceremonial Magick, Tantra, Kabbalah, the history of Magickal societies - make him a unique voice in the communities he serves as a teacher and author. This article could use some work, but the subject is notable IMO.Rosencomet (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Secondary sourcing is required for notability, not the primary sourcing of which you speak. Qworty (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep in agreement with Elen of the Roads. -- No  unique  names  16:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Elen's very sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. See my response to Qworty's nomination of Brushwood Folklore Center for deletion. This is one of a collection of nominations for deletion that I feel should all be dismissed at once. Folklore1 (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep*. Kraigs books are considered to be classics, having been reissued on several occasions with updates. He is used as a reference in sociological classes at Marshal University.  This author is certainly notable.Maegdlyn Morris 03:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maegdlyn (talk • contribs)
 * Keep It's hard for me to judge notability of authors in this field, because libraries rarely collect the books, and the customary book review sources I rely on rarely cover them. But I see for [ WorldCat Identities] that there are a fair number of holdings, especially for Modern magick, and I see there it has been translated into Russian & Spanish, and the author search gives also Polish, and for other books French and Czech. In the absence of other objective evidence I have come to rely on the presence of such translations as an indication those in the subject area think the work worth translation.  DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 19 November 2012 (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.