Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 04:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ebony Anpu

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * The initial AfD with the original nominator's comments concerning veracity of the sources and notability may be seen at Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu, first try.

Okay folks, revisiting this AfD I have decided to reset it. Bare with me here. There were procedural concerns with the initial drafting of this AfD, namely that an Anon initiated it. However, the anon and or anons that started it have valid points, but such points have been lost by the fact that there has been use of proxies, and actual discussion about the merits of the article has been lost amongst folks disagreeing with the legitimacy of the AfD. So I am restarting the AfD, period. I have no opinion on the article, but here are the issues addressed by the anons, and I feel that they are valid reasons to initiate an AfD...


 * The individual is non-notable. See this Google Search, for instance.
 * There are serious concerns with the veracity of the references used in the article.

With that out of the way, the discussion in this AfD will remain limited to the whether or not the article's claims meet our standards set up for proper references, and whether or not the subject of the article meets our criteria for inclusion. Procedural brouhaha shall remain on the talk page of the AfD only. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No Vote For the record. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep See (Old AfD). [Discussion about procedure moved to this AfD's talk page.]  [Personal attacks removed] Captain Barrett 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC) [More personal attacks removed]
 * No vote from me either for right now, but I think Jeffrey did the right thing by refreshing this discussion. (jarbarf) 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC) [Discussion about procedure moved to this AfD's talk page.]


 * Notablility: 'Notable here means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. Notability is generally permanent.'-Wikipedia. Already Ebony has attracted a lot of Notice in the week he has been on Wiki.  Everything against him has been character assasination with no validity.  The proof of his notability is found in all AfD records.  I mean, seriously, how could someone who is _not notable_ cause so much interest and concern in the first week? Captain Barrett 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment and similar can't have done any harm... Dave 19:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, good point. I was trying to get more sources, but I ended up getting vandals. Captain Barrett 23:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I have no idea what the article is talking about, and therefore it cannot reasonably be said to be asserting notabliity. Happy to change if article improves. Dave 18:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To explain myself further: It is impossible for me, with no knowledge of thelma etc, to judge the subject notable as the article currently stands. If the article was modified so that notability was clearly asserted, then I would be happy to change my vote. Dave 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dave. I've read the article twice and I haven't got a clue what it's about, but it doesn't seem to be about Mr Anpu for the most part.  At present, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless independently sourced. I have no problems finding independent (= mainstream, scholarly, literary) sources on Aleister Crowley. This person otoh only seemed to exist within the confines of O.T.O., so unless independent sources are found a neutral biography can't be written. I checked Newsbank and the local rags here, (eastbayexpress.com, sfbg.com, sfgate.com) for appearances but no luck. ~ trialsanderrors 20:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete. I believe that a good article might be written on this topic, but the current one is hopeless. There seem to be no reliable sources. As someone else wrote, 'No reliable sources => no article'. If someone sincerely wants to do research on this, they might be able to rescue it. Mentions of this person in the press would certainly be useful. EdJohnston 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete unless sourced but that means two separate things: (I expand on my comment in the earlier AfD:
 * the first is whether there is any reliable evidence that the person existed. We usually do have data that supports the bare existence so it rarely enters into the discussions here--the private imaginary worlds and non-existent musicians  almost always get filtered out quickly in speedy or Prod.  When a hoax gets discussed, it can usually be eliminated on the grounds of contradictions, as well as  sources. (There  may still be some more clever flights of the imagination in WP undetected)  But in this case there is zero out-of-cult documentation that there ever was such a person. Given the general nature of AC's writings, I  think we are justified in asking for at least one source from someone not involved with the groups who has actually seen the person.
 * I have examined all the external links. The page at http://www.93current.de/groups.shtml lists 33  related groups, with varing amounts of documentation, and uses language implying hat the compiler has some doubts about some of them. Our guy is "no.27 Hawk & Jackal the sun and the moon conjoined: Thelemic Witchcraft. Founded by Charles Reese a.k.a. Ebony Anpu, who died far to soon, so you can't contact them anymore. Check out his work." (with a link to http://home.earthlink.net/~charlesreese/HawkJackal.html, which gives a "page not found" error. ) The oregon site is "cannot find server,"  The Arkansas one does have a real page, but "2/10/2007 Hotmail/MSN NOTE: Hotmail/msn are NOT accepting email from the Witchvox server at this time - we are working with them on this issue." The site on geocities lists some SF address he is said to have inhabited, and has a photograph. But a testimonial there reports "At the age of 18, Ebony was forced to leave Texas due to legal difficulties. At this point one begins to run into the problem which faces any attempt at biography of Ebony Anpu: his extreme penchant for tall tales concerning his own life." http://www.leapinglaughter.org/archive/charlesreese/ebonylog.htm has a saved chat session. So we have that and the photographs and the memoirs.
 * the other part of sourced is sourcing the information given in the article. For documentation of what he thought and wrote, in-universe sources are i think acceptable, since they seem to consistently identify the body of materials.  The article (wisely) avoids any biographical discussion, and considers him only as a teacher and writer. If I understand correctly from a very brief reading, this religious movement does not believe in reincarnation. Pity, for that might have been some better evidence than now available.
 * I will support the article if there are two truly RS mainstream sources to base it on--not about the religion, for that is well-documented. About the man, which is the subject of this article. I write this hoping that someone will find something, not hoping they will not. DGG 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I respect your commitment to NPOV, DGG. Thank you.  I would point out that the use of the term "cult" in reference to the OTO is not acurate, and possibly libelous.  They are a recognized non-profit religious corporation.  If you discount data from all religious organizations Wiki would be very scant indeed.  Think about it. Captain Barrett 23:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ebony has at least three living relatives: His daughter :Chandra Reese-Fries, his Mother, and his ex-wife Leisle.  I am currently working on contacting them for more info. Captain Barrett 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please avoid original research. --Bejnar 08:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * comment "Cult " is a neutral term to me, meaning a relatively small religious group. It also has the meaning of a pattern of worship: Catholics refer to the cult of the Virgin Mary. I apologize if others understood it differently.
 * I note that a resource mentioned in another discussion, http://www.egnu.org/thelema/, does not mention him. It would take considerable OR to decide if this is because of relative unimportance , or religious differences. I have mentioned in that other discussion (Sam Webster) that ministers of conventional religions have well known and stable structures and offices and distinctions, which can be used for assessing N. They also acquire their knowledge through established divinity schools of some sort, and they sometimes publish in peer-reviewed journals. This makes establishing N much easier and much more objective.
 * I consider all religions to be notable provided there is some V way of finding out about them--I think this is the only possible standard, as WP is not a judge of theological truth. Individuals are another matter--any group  with more than one religious leader has some who are more notable than others in that group. It's that which can be judged objectively if there are objectively visible criteria. If not, they can still be established as  N through 3rd party mention. If this fails as well, it is beyond human ability to judge. DGG 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To reiterate: Ebony had an "Official" Office, as published by the OTO. Here is the problem, as DGG pointed out on Sam Webster, with individual-oriented religions.  They are prone to massive ego-battles and no standard set of rules.  You cannot fault the religion for not imposing more strict rules, but if you are an honest researcher you need to take into consideration personal infighting.  Any researcher of Thelema can tell you that everyone disagree's with everyone else.  The point here is Notability, not popularity. Sam  Webster is popular.  Ebony is Notorious.  So notorious that we are inlvolved in this here word-sling.  Although Ebony is not listed on Sam's page (as sam is not listed on any of Ebony's), the same editors who edited sams page also edited Ebony's (see history).  From that is it _obvious_ that Ebony is known buy the same people who knew Sam.  This is an issue that will not go away.  If you truly wish to have a comprehensive encyclopedia of Reality, rather than bias, you will need to find some way to deal with individuals who are very notable, but otherwise do not conform to your standards of "religion", or who have enemies who wish to not see them on wikipedia for personal reasons. Captain Barrett 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. There are many interesting things about Ebony not yet verified, I will not mention them here because I do not have the proof (that you need), yet. These things made him avoid publicity and especially the Law, for many years. I have given many verifiable sources for him. Notability is not only about "your name in a paper" - that would be stupid.  What if the unibomber had never been linked to a real person?  Would the Unibomber be not notable because there are no articles with his name in it?  Yet he is well known.  Think people. Captain Barrett 01:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, does not appear to meet BIO or verifiability requirements.--Peta 02:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No Vote pending deletion review & RfC for out-of-process WP:AFD. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-14 04:19Z 
 * Please don't wait - if this is brought to deletion review while this discussion is live, the deletion review will be closed. Deletion review is for 1) already deleted material or 2) already closed discussions.  GRBerry 20:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough reliable 3rd party sources to verify or establish notability. If this is really an out of order AFD, then an admin will overturn it.  However, we shouldn't just slavishly follow process and forget that encyclopedic content is the goal.  --Jackhorkheimer 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * comment In the context of this discussion, i interpret 3rd party to mean sources outside of Thelma. As Captain Barrett pointed out,  it is very obvious that the different groups don't acknowledge each others existence, but--as he also said--this has no bearing on this AfD. However, I find it incredible that none of the Bay Area papers ever mentioned him--he is just the sort of person they would have talked about. We are asked to consider Reality, but the standards of evidence presented are those of in-universe role-playing games. I would not be adverse to reconsidering if they find real sources. DGG 03:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not even close. Not enough reliable 3rd party sources to verify existence, let alone establish notability. And as a former consumer of Bay Area alternative media, I echo DGG's comment about the lack of coverage. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources are largely self-referential - notaility claim looks like an attempt at halo effect from things whose notability is open to question. No evidence that this individual is independently notable. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

''' Relisted. Again. Per DRV, the previous closure was premature, so, give it FIVE DAYS from THIS DATE STAMP. ''' With all previous discussion still valid, please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Needs Sourcing! :^) §†SupaSoldier†§  00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unless the authors of this article can obtain more third-party sources, rather than sources from the individual himself, then the article violates WP:COI and the individuality section of WP:NOTE. --Nevhood 01:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How can this AfD get sources, in order to fairly let it run its course, as long as it is protected? Do I need to get an Admin on my side to post them for me? Captain Barrett 01:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have unprotected it. But if you try to ad even a single image that has been repeatedly deleted, you will be blocked.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeffrey is reffering to [Charles Reese's Picture which he does not want me to post. It is currently up for DRV. [[User:Captainbarrett|Captain Barrett]] 01:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to think it is all me, but if you look at the DRV, I did not delete the image originally, four admins agree with the deletion, and it has been deleted on Commons. It is in your best interest to drop the image issue for now and pay attention to the focus of people's arguments here: the references.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTE and WP:CITE  V 6 0  VTalk · VDemolitions  ·  Editor review 2! 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it fails WP:BIO and needs third party non trivial references WP:CITE.--Dakota 03:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - needs further sourcing and cleanup, but I think it barely meets the bar for notability. - WeniWidiWiki 05:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Taking part in this so I can't mess up again by closing it early. Does not meet WP:BIO, and has problems with conflict of interest with the use of primary sources, which aren't reliable. --Core desat  08:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Guy et al. Fails WP:BIO and has significant sourcing problems. JDoorjam     JDiscourse 16:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No vote. I do not feel qualified to vote on this one, one way or the other. However I do want to interject from reading the discussion above. It seems like people are having a very hard time attempting to find hard fact on this person and I even saw some mention of contacting people for facts. I would take a moment to say to anyone interested in keeping this article to avoid OR in your attempts to bring the article up to snuff. If you simply cannot find admissible sources, then you will have to wait and attempt to recreate this page in a more thorough form somewhere down the line. If Ebony Anpu is truly N then as time goes on, sources should become more readily available. If time goes on and less and less information become available, then I hate to say it, in the long run he wasn't really that N and he didn't deserve a page on Wikipedia. Either way, here's hoping this all get straightened out, because this seems like a sticky one. Warhorus 18:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Guy, Calton and such. BIO, self reference, and lack of clarity what the notability factor is... mceder (u t c) 19:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The closest things to reliable sources here seem to be the Hawk and Jackal links, but he started that order so they can't be reliable sources about him. There's no third-party notability. — coe l acan t a lk  — 21:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. And by the way, the correct spellings are "magic" not "magick" and "magical" not "magickal." Wave the magic wand and make this article disappear. Edison 05:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per all aboveOo7565 05:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not the subject of multiple, independent reliable sources, so notability is not established. The sources cited in the article appear to be either articles that are written by him or otherwise do not have him as their subject. ObiterDicta 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Please check the References. Behutet Magazine is an Independent Magazine Issue #12 and #13 lists "Ebony Anpu's Hawk and Jackal system". Thanks.Captain Barrett 05:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So should the article be on the Hawk and Jackal system (if the system rather than the person is the subject of the articles)? Frankly, though, two articles in the same publication is a weak assertion of notability.  A better one would be articles in separate magazines. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete He is not notable - period. --Bejnar 08:04, 22 February 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.