Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murry Hope


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Murry Hope

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not clear how this person meets WP:BIO, appears to be a promotional article. Of the references present in the article, 3 are to this person's book. 1 is to "Healing Energies Center" website, remainder are to books which appear to mention the subject only in passing. RadioFan (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This biography (Murry Hope) supposedly meets the criteria for notability WP:BIO Any biography (2) and WP:BIO Creative professionals (1) and (3) and perhaps others. Some reasons: This woman author published nearly 30 books and had translations in several languages making contributions (in her field) along all her life.
 * This biographic article never intended be promotional for anyone, besides (until now) was not possible to determine if the author still is alive or not (may be others editors can provide this information). I have created this article seeking only to fill a missing piece in Wikipedia.
 * As for the references they supply all that was reported in the article (every sentence). The article has full consistence but of course always can be improved with more contributions (and new references) by wiki-editors. Hour of Angels (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete There are no notable third-party sources, and I was unable to find any. If all the sentences were pulled directly from the sources (as Hour of Angels suggested) then there is also a possible copyright issue as well. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ops, better elucidating then: “Every sentence, in the article was edited distinct of the sources for not exiting copyright issues, (only the information provide from these sources)”. Besides the WP:BIO appoint that in the case of notable persons this comply sufficient encyclopedic suitability. Well, it’s up to you, I just hope you decide the best to Wikipedia but remember one thing: All you are deciding keep or not the memories and deeds of a remarkable old lady writer (may be dead). I would like but I can’t afford go back to this discussion any more. So, good luck. Hour of Angels (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ops, better elucidating then: “Every sentence, in the article was edited distinct of the sources for not exiting copyright issues, (only the information provide from these sources)”. Besides the WP:BIO appoint that in the case of notable persons this comply sufficient encyclopedic suitability. Well, it’s up to you, I just hope you decide the best to Wikipedia but remember one thing: All you are deciding keep or not the memories and deeds of a remarkable old lady writer (may be dead). I would like but I can’t afford go back to this discussion any more. So, good luck. Hour of Angels (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment From what I can tell there is no copyright issue, but the sources themselves are not reliable as per the guidelines.  If the article stays, it will require major changes to correct grammar. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This "lady" has received no attention whatsoever from third-party reliable sources, and fails WP:GNG. Totally promotional article. --NellieBly (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Murry Hope article has been improved with reliable secondary and third-party references (after those earlier comments).177.24.65.174 (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — 177.24.65.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment I see only 1 reference being added and it is of similarly questionably reliability.--RadioFan (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems to have adequate third-party referencing within her field. Occultists typically don't get a lot of mainstream press and typically have to be judged by their publications and references within the occult field. Occultists with multiple books published by reputable occult publishers such as Weiser, Llewellyn, etc. (full publication data should be added to the bibliography to help support this) and whose works are cited in other occult works published by reputable occult publishers are typically considered notable within the field of occultism. (Google scholar results show that her works are so cited in other publications.) When the strict interpretation of notablity standards would exclude most people from a whole field except those who "act out" (such Aleister Crowley or Anton LaVey) and get their antics written up in the papers, then one has to rely on common sense and relative notability in their field. Just because the field is fringey doesn't mean that all subjects connected with the field are automatically non-notable. An author with 26 books over 18 years, with some republications and new editions, is certainly notable, even if there is not much detailed biographical information available. I remember The Way of Cartouche and it was available in mainstream bookstores, which tends to support the notability of the author. St. Martins Press is certainly a reputable publisher. We are not talking about a self-published corpus here. Yworo (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article could use some work, but the subject seems notable and time should be given to improve it rather than shooting it down right away. Rosencomet (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, if The article is badly written and poorly sourced. She writes about the occult and the presses her "books"  are "published" by are mostly so minor you cannot find them.  Perhaps some are self-published.  One book by her, Practical Egyptian Magic, was published by "St. Martin's Griffin", a real publisher.  The other solid factor in favor of keeping is that, if the footnotes are to be trusted, she appears to have been mentioned in books about the contemporary occult by real publishers (Brill, Rowman & Littlefield).  If this is sufficient to establish notability, then Keep, I suppose.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the publication data to the bibliography. None of the publishers are vanity presses: Aquarian Press, Elements Books and Thoth Publications are all small but independent occult/new age presses. Even The College of Psychic Studies seems to be independent and not associated with the subject. Thorsons is now part of HarperCollins. Yworo (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2011 (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.