Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu, first try


 * 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 to reset the whole bloody thing. See the new Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ebony Anpu

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable individual, no reliable sources, unverifiable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.34.177.245 (talk • contribs) (user's first edit was to this AfD) —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-13 00:01Z 
 * Can you be more specific, please? <3 Captain Barrett 21:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, you need to read about standards for reliable sources WP:RS, standards for verifiability WP:V, standards for notability WP:BIO. You can't write an article based on a bunch of self-published fan sites. Once you remove the unreliables sources, your simply won't have enough verifiable information to establish notablility. Come back after somebody has written a biography of the fellow. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. 80.135.203.4 00:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC) (user's first edit was to this AfD) —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-13 00:01Z 
 * Why do you continue to post anonymously, from different IP addresses? The foundation for his page is his works, publications both private and public.  I knew Ebony personally for about a decade and attended his funeral.  Although I have much first-person evidence from him directly, all content for his wiki should be taken directly from solid sources.  The inclusion of "Fan Pages" is to show the full scope of his influence on Thelemic culture, from an Anthropological perspective.  I realize the wording of his biography is rough, but hey I just made this page yesterday.  You sound like you knew him...  why not contribute to the project rather than snipe? <3 Captain Barrett 00:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Choronzon has no fixed name or location. Your sources are crap. Your subject does not meet WP notabliity requirements. Period. 88.198.43.207 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC) (user's first edit was to this AfD) —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-13 00:01Z 
 * hehehehhe. Your funny. :) Captain Barrett 01:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Ebony Anpu influenced the lives of many notable people.  His work is known _Internationally_.  The article is currently only a stub - still in progress of being compiled.  Please give it time to be edited and polished. Destroying articles before they can be worked on by other editors (to create a NPOV) is not the Wiki way.  Wiki is based on obtaining collective knowledge and peer-review.  Ebony has possibly thousands of peers and it is a travesty to knowledge if his Wiki get's deleted before a complete entry is accomplished. Captain Barrett 16:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if only for procedural reasons. Anons are not allowed to create afds. Oh yeah, and the article looks notable. Nardman1 17:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - even by the standards of occultism, Ebony Anpu was a nutcase. His work may be "known internationally", but these days that's not far removed from saying "There's a web page about him somewhere". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.189.13 (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
 * So you admit he is known internationally; that is a solid foundation for Notable. "Nutcase" is qualitative and contributes nothing. He died in 1999, so the majority of his work was created and distributed _before_ the wide-spread use of the internet.  If the internet helped to spread his work further, post-humously, that gives an even greater reason why he is notable.  Can you be more specific, please? <3 Captain Barrett 23:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 *  Speedy procedural keep As an out-of-process nomination with no valid not a vote(s) to delete. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-11 23:38Z 
 * Keep As per Nardman and A.L.Foolio93 00:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, bad faith nomination.-- Wizardman 01:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, no opinion, but I'd suggest letting the AfD run it's course. Right now it is a pretty clear keep (even if a bunch of "new users" show up and opine delete).  If anything at least the talkpage will get a "previous afd closed keep" tag to discourage future noms.--Isotope23 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTICE: AN ADMINISTRATOR HAS REVERTED NON-ADMINISTRATIVE ATTEMPTS AT CLOSING THIS AFD. ONLY AN ADMIN MAY CLOSE THIS.  THANK YOU.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 10:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The notice appearing above is an individual administrator's interpretation of policy, which is currently under review, and does not reflect an official policy of Wikipedia. Nonetheless, since the speedy closure and the eventual keep of this article will both have equivalent results, there's no reason not to allow the WP:AFD to finish.
 * —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-12 23:54Z 
 * In view of User:WeniWidiWiki's observations, this out-of-process nomination can have no binding result per reading of WP:NOP, although the debate should be preserved for future reference.
 * —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-13 01:19Z 


 * Comment Possibly a keep (haven't looked at the sources), but not a speedy keep per WP:CSK. If closed now, this would only end up on WP:DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 17:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment and Question: I read this on WP:CSK "nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption (e.g., a userpage of a contestant in a heated edit war by their opponent(s) solely for harassment)." It seems to me this is what has happened.  All delete requests, AfD nominations, and the CopyrightVio have come from two similar "new user" IP's in Austen Texas and Germany.  Discussion history shows these IPS saying "he was a nutcase" and "I am choronzon (a mythical demon)".  I think it is very clear that these postings reflect a "edit war" and _no_ valid reasons for nomination. I had a feeling this would happen, that's why I put "topic of heated debate" on the disc page.  Boy Ebony is popular! <3 Captain Barrett 17:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever the motivations, the argument about lack of independent sources is not unfounded and the nomination falls squarely within the scope of WP:AFD. ~ trialsanderrors 17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Independent sources: Two published books, by Stellar Visions Inc.  Four separate web archives of Official Ordo Templi Orientis Publications which all bring supporting evidence, One published autobiography (by an unrelated party) with many details of Grady and Ebony's relationship, plus many more "unverifiable" personal pages. Also Bill Hiedrick is a highly prominant and respected IX degree in the O.T.O., with many research credits attatched to him.  In matters of OTO history, many would agree that he is verified. Where is the lack of sources please? Captain Barrett 18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How are those independent sources if he was a co-author and secretary of the O.T.O.? That's pretty much the opposite of independent. ~ trialsanderrors 19:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OTO publications are still recognized and Offical publications. OTO is recognized as a Non-profit religous org.  I'm sorry  if they present a conflict of interest, but all publications are owned and operated by someone, the fact that the author knew Ebony does not detract from the reliability of information (captain barrett).
 * Yes, it does. It makes them unreliable as to opinions about notability. If no outside sources endorse these claims of notability, they are completely unfounded. 87.118.110.163 01:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unsure if this was a bad faith nomination or not, but at the very least it appears misguided.  (jarbarf) 22:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - before registering an opinion, read the article talk page about exactly what these "sources" and "publications" consist of. 87.118.110.163 01:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

'''NOTE: The nominator and several editors in this discussion are editing and voting from Tor open proxies. Whoever closes this AfD needs to closely scrutinize all contributions for vote-stacking.''' - WeniWidiWiki 00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, I've blocked the ones I confirmed as TOR.--Isotope23 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It' sure strange that everyone is worried about anons opinions, but can't be bothered to look at the lack of quality of the sources and publications, lack of believable claims of notability. That's what this AfD is about, after all. Anybody have any opinion on the sources? 87.118.110.163 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ==Comment== So... what did Ebony do you to you again that made you so angry? <3 Captain Barrett 03:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Better Comment:Ok. Here I am, fresh from reading Wikipedia:Reference and Wikipedia:Original Research. From this study I have gathered several things. First: it seems to me that all of Ebony's writings fall squarely in the category of "Primary Resource." They hold his copyright (although I have not found it at the copyright office, I believe writers are given automatic copyright to their own work, just by putting the little "c" on it. Evidence from google tells me these writing exist independent of him, in multiple locations around the world in the same form with copyright notice on them). Second: I am a primary source. I knew him very well. Though I recognize and bow to the need for proper citations. Third: Stellar Visions counts as a Primary Source as a published work. Fourth: Satyrs work counts as a Primary Source. Fifth: Bill Heidricks work and all publications of the OTO count as Secondary Sources and are totally valid contributions. Sixth: This is up in the air, but I think the various hawk and jackal covens and sites "unverifiable" web sites made to honor him should be considered Tertiary Sorces. Thank yo for motivating me to study the approproate wiki sections. <3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captainbarrett (talk • contribs) 04:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC). Captain Barrett 04:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm no proxy, and I had no knowledge of the subject before reading the article just now. I can now more exactly say that I have no Verifiable knowledge of the subject. Every one of the sources is self-published or a blog. I'm tempted to classify this as in-universe. If anyone can find some sources, it might be an article someday. At the moment there is not even any RS evidence that the entire body of materials is more than a hoax. Not everything originated by Aleister Crowley  has much connection with reality. speedy isn't for hoaxes, as it is rightly felt they need fuller exposure. This one has had it. DGG 05:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I do not understand. What is a hoax?  He lived.  He did everything I have referenced.  If this is a hoax, why do it?  Its not like it's funny, the man is dead.  I am in touch with his living Daughter.  I have found many sources as described on the wiki:reference page. It takes time to get sources on very interesting people.  If you delete the article now you will have no chance to _ever_ get more sources. If wiki deleted every article they were unsure about, the day after it's creation, we would not have a good encyclopedia. Wiki is based on collective work, please do not subvert the process. <3Captain Barrett 05:21, 13 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.