Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum


 * 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 delete. Many "keep" opinions were not conducive to establishing consensus. Remember, AfD is not a vote, and just saying "keep, he's notable" is not very persuasive (see also the essay WP:ILIKEIT). At any rate, WP:NOR could not be overridden even by a "keep" consensus, if there were one; this article appears to be largely original research judging from the thin sourcing. This result doesn't preclude the recreation of the article in a form compliant to WP:BIO, WP:NOR and WP:COI – i.e., by someone else than Jeff Rosenbaum himself. Sandstein 10:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Rosenbaum

 * — (View AfD)

Apparently written by the subject of the article, no outside sources, questionable notability. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - Autobiographical, directly copied from subject's bio here. If it's not self-penned it's a copyvio. However, users edit history and comments about self makes it pretty clear to me it's self-penned. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫ ♦ ♫ 19:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * addendum - However, edit history and diffs should stay accessible via some means while other actions against user are in progress. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫ ♦ ♫ 21:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Admins will have access to a deleted article, what is needed is a mention on the user's talk page that the article they wrote was deleted. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - Violates WP:AB, WP:NN, WP:COI, self-aggrandizing.

From Wikipedia's Policy on Conflict of Interest:

If you have a conflict of interest, you should:
 * 1) avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 2) avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its  competitors;
 * 3) avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Spam).

Rosencomet, the creator of this entry has violated everyone of these policies. - WeniWidiWiki 20:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and others. TSO1D 21:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This and related articles are the subject of a pending Request for arbitration. Newyorkbrad 22:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - multiple interviews and media appearances meet WP:BIO. Also, it is not a copyvio as ACE gave permission to contribute text from their speaker bios to Wikipedia. &mdash;Hanuman Das 23:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note - And who was it who gave this permission? --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫ ♦ ♫ 23:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Who or where was permission given from ACE? I must have missed this. --Pigman (talk &bull; contribs) 23:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's around somewhere. The person who wrote the bios gave permission, IIRC, which clearly is their right to give. &mdash;Hanuman Das 23:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As in, Rosencomet gave himself permission to re-post what he had written for the rosencomet.com website here on Wikipedia. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫ ♦ ♫ 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, hun, you know what they say about assumptions, it makes an ass out of u & me. &mdash;Hanuman Das 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, HD, I am not your "hun". This attempt at belittling another editor, and your calling other editors "asses" violates WP:CIVIL. Of course, you are free to call yourself whatever you like. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫ ♦ ♫ 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that Hanuman Das screwed up the joke, Biff Tannen-style. --Calton | Talk 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete --Pigman (talk &bull; contribs) 23:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see how this meets WP:BIO. All the cites sources and media apears to be trivial in nature.--Isotope23 03:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above and per nom. Mattisse 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, was interviewed along with other notable neopagans in RE/Search special edition on Modern Pagans: an Investigation of Contemporary Ritual (Re/Search) by V. Vale & John Sulak. This is a litmus test for notablity in the neopagan community. Notability is not an issue, regardless of what other issues there may be. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to disagree. Modern Pagans is representative of "pop-paganism" and the commercialization and co-opting of neopaganism by profiteers and people with political agendas. Comparing Rosenbaum along side the lives and works of other personalities in the book like Isaac Bonewits, Ronald Hutton or Margot Adler, I'd still have to conclude that he is not notable. He holds a BA and his claim to fame is being a venue promoter - as per his own autobiographical entry. - WeniWidiWiki 18:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've been involved in the Pagan community since the early '80s, and know many of the people in the Re/Search book (ironically enough, I'm also in it), as well as some of the folks involved in its production. However, I have *never* heard *anyone* refer to the book as any sort of "litmus test for notability".  Vale and John interviewed a number of people they met at Starwood, and those they knew through friends in California.  It is very focused on the West Coast and a particular subset of the Neopagan community, and while interesting for what it is, I never heard anyone involved in the project refer to it as an attempt to focus on those who are "notable".  Some in the book are quite notable, others are simply people they thought were interesting or who were friends of theirs. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫ ♦ ♫ 19:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The litmus test for notablity is this AfD. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete this autobiography from a serial spammer. If the subject is genuinely notable (possible) we can wait until a neutral third party decides to write an article.  It's going to be virtually impossible to have a rational debate about the thing until after the RfArb closes, and in the mean time this is vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per JzG. Not all that notable to begin with, and the self-authored vanispamcruftisement ain't helping matters. --Calton | Talk 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, started as an autobiography, but notable. Fred Bauder 14:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The above user is a member of ArbCom. Jefferson Anderson 21:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable per Fred Bauder. Frater Xyzzy 21:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is well researched, well referenced, and goes far beyond any bio existing elsewhere. The references include books, newspapers, and well-respected journalists like Paul Krassner. There's a discography and a list of media appearances. The attempt to delete is not, IMO, based on the quality of the article or the notability of the subject, but is part of a multi-front attack on the author during an ongoing mediation. If someone else had written it, these calls for deletion would not have been made. Rosencomet 03:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From WP:AFD "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." --BostonMA talk 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I assure you this nomination is not an attack on you, but an attempt to gather consensus on what I feel to be an article not meeting our standards. If someone else had written it, it wouldn't be in violation of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Jeff Rosenbaum is a MAJOR part of the neopagan scene in the Northeast (and, because of the size of Starwood, nationally); his work for the last 3 decades holding Starwood together is a huge contribution to that scene. He is responsible for putting together MANY notables who would not otherwise be working together. As a regular Starwood and WInterstar speaker, I write from experience. Rosenbaum's work is one of the main reasons the Church of the SUbGenius relocated from Texas to Cleveland, and (just as one example of hundreds) my current work as an instructor with Robert Anton Wilson's Maybe Logic University would not have happened had Rosenbaum not invited both RAW and myself to events in the past. Although Jeff is not known as a writer, especially, he is most certainly known very widely as an organizer -- not just a promoter. He is as important to the neopagan community as any of the (hundreds of) speakers and writers he has brought to the ACE events. If Larry Harvey is notable for Burning Man then Jeff Rosenbaum is certainly notable for Starwood! I do not understand why there is so much resistance to listing a person who is definitely one of the primary movers in the East Coast neopagan movement. RevStang 09:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the above user's 9th edit.  --BostonMA talk  15:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

— Nialofbork (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * keep This subject should not be deleted as I think it is notable enough to stay Nialofbork 17:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, user is notable... regardless of the fact who originally wrote this, it needs NPOVing and some clean up... not deletion.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 11:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per various keep arguments above. Jefferson Anderson 17:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing vote due to unexpected harassment. Clearly I've stepped in something smelly. Going elsewhere to hose off my shoes. Jefferson Anderson 23:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The first edit for the above editor is 4 Dec. 2006 --BostonMA talk 18:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * However, a quick look at usr's contribs will indicate that this account is not a single purpose account and could not be a sock intended to sway the vote since the account was created before the article was nominated. Therefore the above comment was made in bad faith merely to attempt to discredit my opinion. Jefferson Anderson 21:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A short look at usr's contribs seems to indicate that the statement The first edit for the above editor is 4 Dec. 2006 is correct. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is meaningless to this AfD as this is not a single-purpose account! I request that admins warn User:BostonMA about trying to discredit another editor's position. I have done nothing to deserve this editor's hostile action which amounts to a personal attack except to vote theother way in this AfD than he or she did. Jefferson Anderson 22:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * COMMENT - I think it is inappropriate for BostonMA and HighInBC to try to discredit or trivialize the votes of some of those above with comments about how long they've been editors or how many edits they've made, and I think these comments should be taken down. Rosencomet 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Single purpose account, this is a common practice accepted by the community. Neither of us has said these people are not credible, but simply have pointed out they are very new to the project. Any inference drawn from that statement is unrelated to the post that the user is new. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that this is NOT a single-purpose account, see my contribs. Jefferson Anderson 20:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody said you were, BostonMA only said The first edit for the above editor is 4 Dec. 2006, which the logs show as true. Saying something that is true about another editor is not some sort of insult to you. Nobody has attacked your as a person, BostonMA has simple made a note to help the closing admin. The experience and history of those casting opinions should be taking into account. This is not a vote, but a discussion. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this is not a technique one uses in a "discussion", not was it relevant regardless of it's technical "truth". There are PLENTY of "true" irrelevant things you could refer to about someone to discredit him/her: "The person making this statement is a Jew", or "a woman" or "has no college degree". Just because the statement is true doesn't mean it wasn't designed to denegrate the subject. This was an obvious attempt to trivialize Jefferson Anderson's input by IMPLYING that it should be given less note. I do not have any contact with this individual, nor do I know who he is. He may have a great deal of knowledge to apply to this issue, regardless of when his account was opened. I see he has been complimented by Pigman for his input elsewhere, but I don't see him saying anything now. I agree that J.A. should not be treated this way. Rosencomet 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a valid opinion, however, the community has reached a consensus that admin's should take into account a variety of factors when closing and AfD. The religion, gender, level of education etc should not be taken into account. The level of experience the user has in Wikipedia and the level in which the argument takes into account our policies are valid things for the admin to consider. I once again say that this is not personal. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per above - user is notable, article could use some clean-up, but subject is plainly worth including — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.168.211.13 (talk • contribs) 11:42, December 21, 2006 (1 edit in contributions)
 * Weak Delete on a gut feeling. Seems spammish, notablity seems borderline. Just H 23:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Auto and WP:COI and because it fails WP:Bio per Isotope23. In particular, note the statement above by Rosencomet (Jeff Rosenbaum, as I understand it) that this article "goes far beyond any bio existing elsewhere."  Wikipedia is not the place to write a biography about yourself, particularly one that goes far beyond the coverage you've received in independent reliable sources. --TheOtherBob 18:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. What policy says that the Wikipedia article on a subject can't be more complete than other articles? Are you saying that no Wiki article can be anything but derivative of other articles elsewhere? Rosencomet 21:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wikipedia is not for original research, and articles must be based on reliable external sources.  An article based on someone's own perceptions rather than external sources violates Wikipedia's official policy (no original research), and one of its most central guidelines (use of reliable sources).  So the answer to your question is, yes, that's precisely what I'm saying - articles must be derivative of external sources and not be original research.  I think this article fails that test. --TheOtherBob 22:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we disagree on this in several ways. First, a Wiki article can combine several sources and thereby become a more complete bio than any other single one that you might come across, partly because the others might have been created to fulfill a specific purpose rather than be a general article abut the person. Second, most bios DON'T require references and sources, which is why I originally said (as you can read) that this one goes beyond others. It is not just a bio, which has been done before, but an ARTICLE with references to interviews, written works, and a discography which has not been assembled in such a form before. I expect this is true of many Wiki articles. There is a difference between original research and the results one can get by gathering existing information and assembling a more complete profile than anyone has done before, and linking it with relevant other pages. I think the subject is notable and the article is worth keeping, and I'd appreciate help improving it rather than shooting it down. Perhaps some of the material is not sufficiently important, and/or the copy can sound more encyclopedic. Fine, please advise. But the tone of this discussion has not been one of an attempt to be helpful. Rosencomet 22:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to address the last four sentences of your response, which I think are off-topic. (Sorry, that's how they look to me.)  As to the rest, articles require references and sources.  If this were, as you say, an article that was pieced together from many different reliable sources, it would be fine.  But I've seen no evidence that this was pieced together from external reliable sources.  It seems instead to be an autobiography that goes far beyond any sources, and that therefore violates WP:OR and WP:RS (and WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:Bio).  That's why I think it should be deleted. --TheOtherBob 23:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks like they established notability, and I see lots of non-trivial media coverage and interviews. What more do you need? Keep based on all that and the other arguments here... Moscatanix 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The first edit by the above account was made 13 December 2006 --BostonMA talk 13:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On the fence I also think the media coverage is sufficient to establish notability. Note that the media coverage does not merely mention the subject in passing, but mentions him as being notably related to the main topics of that coverage, such as the Starwood festival.  With regard to the arguments about original research: yes, there is certainly a problem with original research in this article.  These problems would need to be cleaned up if the article is kept.  My big concern is that if all of the unpublished material is removed, would there really be much left to say, other than that Rosenbaum is a moving force behind ACE, Starwood etc?  --BostonMA talk  01:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Article was created not only as autobiography but as part of a spam campaign. Wikipedia already has enough systemic bias through the inevitable demographics of legitimate editors.  Letting articles made as spam stay in the encyclopedia tilts Wikipedia's contents too much towards their interests regardless of whether the individual article subjects actually meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  This is the whole-encyclopedia version of the WP:NPOV policy that applies within individual articles.  Articles created this way should be deleted and temporarily salted until attention is no longer focused on them.  After unsalting, it should be left to unconflicted editors to possibly eventually recreate the article, unbiasing the selection.  See also Foundation counsel Brad Patrick's remarks on the issue:
 * We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy.  We must put a stop to this now.
 * -- 67.117.130.181 00:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First edit by the above IP was made on 14 November 2006. --BostonMA talk  00:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Any reason this has not been closed? As the nominator I should not be the one to do so. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:12, 24 December 2006 (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.