Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford (third nomination)


 * 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 -- Y not? 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mandrake of Oxford
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural relisting from Deletion review/Log/2007 June 17. I abstain at this point.  Daniel  07:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC) *Delete with a deep sigh. Personally, I would prefer that some of this information be merged into the Mandrake Press article, along with information about the modern Mandrake Press. However multiple advocates/opponents of the two publishing houses have been conducting a WikiWar between themselves over the inclusion of the rival articles, and neither has properly established the notability of their favourite. So reluctantly, I say lets keep both Mandrake of Oxford and Mandrake Press off the Wiki (until either becomes notable), and retain only the article about the original Mandrake Press. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk to me)  12:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 10:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per second nomination, not enough independent sources.  The only source that can be viewed as even somewhat independent (the Dave Evans interview) is (1) is of questionable reliability as it is published by the store owner on his own website, and (2) in any case is an interview, which means none of the information in it is fact-checked, but rather, just reflects statements of Mogg Morgan. (3) Dave Evans may have a PhD, but that doesn't make him an expert, and the interview is published on the website for "Occult E-Books" so we should not take their choice to interview an occult publisher as evidence of notability when it's the only evidence.  Mango juice talk 12:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note the interview is not the only source by Dave Evans. Mandrake of Oxford also figures in his book, The History of British Magic After Crowley. IPSOS (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I had missed that source, I guess because no information is specifically sourced to it. How much coverage does Mandrake get in the book?  Is it on the order of a chapter, a couple pages, or more like a paragraph?  Mango juice talk 01:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion of Mandrake, its founder Mogg Morgan, and its various publications figure on some dozen or so pages. IPSOS (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mandrake Press along with the re-introduction there of deleted material about the modern Mandrake Press. On their own these two modern presses are borderline non-notable; together with the originalMandrake Press they make a reasonable (and now reasonably referenced) article. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  23:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to Mandrake Press - Mandrake of Oxford figures significantly in British magic after Crowley. This is covered in independent secondary source, The History of British Magic After Crowley: Kenneth Grant, Amado Crowley, Chaos Magic, Satanism, Lovecraft, the Left Hand Path, Blasphemy and Magical Morality by professional academic researcher Dr. Dave Evans, Ph.D. Meets WP:CORP. IPSOS (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, at the risk of climbing a notable building, I have gone though all of the previewable entries on google books for mentions of this publisher, and included them on the article. It is not my intent that my additions are encyclopedic or that they add wieght to the notability in and of themselves; I have listed them so everyone has a better idea of what is being deleted.  My personal preference is too keep publishers unless they have published nothing of significance, as I consider their notability as being tied to the notability of their publications, but I have yet to assess the notability of these published works. John Vandenberg 04:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per lack of secondary sources.--Dcooper 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge (with history intact please) to Mandrake Press. As far as I can see, the publisher is much more than a standard publisher, being quite involved in the scene.  The facts of the article are all verified.  The lack of independent secondary sources is a bit of a problem, but hard to avoid when this publisher prints a lot of the "academic" material for this subject. John Vandenberg 19:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per IPSOS and John Vandenberg. Company is notable within its field. GlassFET 16:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - article has sufficient reliable sources and the subject appears to be sufficiently notable. --Evb-wiki 16:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Boy, I wish someone had informed me that my close of the second AfD had been sent to WP:DRV. Anyway, I don't think this company's notability has been established; there's not enough coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject--as far as I can see, there's really only one independent source, Evans. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:26, 1 July 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.