Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Kaczynski (2nd 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. –MuZemike 21:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard Kaczynski
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline or biographical notability guideline due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There were only two keep responses in the previous AfD, and they did not address this issue, mistakenly assuming multiple publication makes a person notable. This is not an element in our notability guidelines, however. Yworo (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete His respectable but modestly cited publications at Google Scholar do not qualify him under WP:ACADEMIC. Neither does his position as an "adjunct assistant professor", a title which apparently carries no teaching duties and is shared by dozens of other people. His music career is obviously way short of meeting WP:ARTIST. It is almost impossible to search Google News for him because he shares a name with Ted Kaczynski's father; adding various discriminators such as "thelema" or "magic" does not turn up anything of significance, so he fails WP:BIO for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe he qualifies as and the author of Pedurabo, among his other credits. He is a well-known lecturer in Thelemic, Golden Dawn, and Neo-Pagan communities both in America and abroad. I will attempt to update his article if I am given time. Rosencomet (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you can cite multiple in-depth reliable independent third-party sources that call him "one of the foremost biographers of Aleister Crowley", that would qualify him as notable. Blurbs on book jackets do not count as independent. The "well-known lecturer" could also add to notability, but not sourced to event announcements on websites of organizations with which he is affiliated or at which he spoke. Again, a reliable, independent third-party biographical source would have to describe him as a "well-known lecturer". You can't simply collect a bunch of event announcements and derive that from them, that would be original research. Yworo (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are going to have a difficult time with this. I can only find two citable reviews of Perdurabo, but they are in fringe publications, Witchvox and Ashé Journal. Not even enough to make the book notable, much less the author. All the "raving praise" seems to consist of publisher-solicited blurbs from other authors and occultists, not published in any independent article or review and therefore cannot be used to support notability, just the usual publicity machine in action. This is pretty typical for this sort of book and doesn't support notability. Yworo (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Question Is it being seriously asserted that all of the periodical articles listed in the article are by this person? They deal with an exceptionally wide range of topics.  DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, an occultist with a real job. Who'd have thunk it. I think these were all stuck in here to try to make the subject seem more notable, by someone who does not understand how our notability policy works. Subject is not notable as an academic or as a musician. If he is notable, it's as a biographer. Not sure that the material unrelated to his (possible) notability should be listed in such detail. If he should be shown to be notable for his occult writing, it's quite distracting and confusing to see all the academic material for which he is not notable also listed. Yworo (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"in-depth reliable independent third-party sources that call him "one of the foremost biographers of Aleister Crowley", that would qualify him as notable" Fair enough. I've just added the Times Literary Supplement review of Perdurabo which calls it ""the major biography to date"". And you don't get much more respectable than the TLS. As regards the other works listed (which I've just expanded), you appear to misunderstand how biographical articles work. They aren't in there to make the subject "more notable" - they are in there because they are works by the subject, and as such need to be listed in order to make the biographical work a complete overview of the subject. Once notability is established, all works need to be listed. I've also added several citations to show that Dr. Kaczinski lectures widely and thus is held in very high esteem as an authority in his fields - which is important for notability purposes. I'm actually quite shocked that this article has been nominated for deletion *again*. We already had a two year discussion on this subject, which led to a No Consensus verdict then - it appears to me to be a bit of a waste of time to re-nominate it again for deletion. This time would be better spent improving the article rather than attempting to destroy the work already put into it.--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, you do not understand. The TLS review is a good one. A second mainstream review like that would make the book notable under WP:BOOK. There are serious problems with most of your other changes.
 * We never link to publisher or Amazon sales pages. They are not reliable sources and they are commercial links which sell the book.
 * You clearly copy/pasted from the subject's CV. That's considered a copyright violation on Wikipedia.
 * We do not cite by example or engage in synthesis. Citing three examples of lectures, cited to pages not independent from the subject because they sponsored the event and have a financial interest in it is not reliable sourcing.
 * Bibliographies do not have to be complete. We list works only related to the topic for which the subject is notable, with external links to more complete listings. A Wikipedia article should not resemble a resumé or C.V. And the MoS specifies that they use bullet points, not numbering. Have a chat with folks over at WikiProject Biography about it if you disbelieve me.
 * Bottom line here? You have not established notability. One more review, and you may establish it for the book and we can create an article on the book. Notability of the author has still not been established. Yworo (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: A list of titles, copypasted or not, hardly qualifies as copyright infringement. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but Wikipedia explcitly prohibits any copy/pasting from the web. See WP:COPYPASTE. One reason is that copy/pasters rarely fix the formatting problems that copy/pasting causes. Yworo (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete (it's a bit difficult in this case to determine according to policy alone; going by gut instinct and personal opinion as an occultist). To me most of the content of the article seems like undue weight. All of this because of what, the book? Really, there's plenty of people who are well-known in their circles, and there's plenty of scholars who write articles on their topic, these things don't make a person remarkable on a more universal scale. The article would benefit from proof of feedback his writings and lectures have received (i.e., has he had any actual impact?). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My point exactly with respect to lectures. Lots of people lecture. Heck, I've probably given three talks myself that I could cite the event announcement for. But that doesn't establish that my talk was notable. That requires a third-party independent review of my talk. Yworo (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, notability is NOT the only criteria for the inclusion of a fact in a biographical article. If you were a teacher, or a chemist, or a lecturer, and you were notable because you were a famous science fiction author, these other occupations/professions certainly belong in your bio, though they may need citations to show that they are so; they do not, however, need "reviews" to show that you were a "notable" teacher, chemist, or lecturer, just that you were an ACTUAL one. Rosencomet (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly used the phrase "we do not cite by example", sometimes equating it with "Synthesis", but I cannot find this phrase in that section of "Original Research". Where in the Wikipedia guidelines can it be found, along with a definition of the term?Rosencomet (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See specifically What counts as a reliable source? As far as a know, event announcements and programs do not go through any sort of peer-review or fact-checking process. They print the biographical blurb given to them by the subject without question except perhaps about length. The point here being no unreliable sources may be used in a BLP, ever (See WP:BLPSOURCES). Second, review WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event". Use of primary sources in a BLP is strongly discouraged (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). These two may not use my phrase "citation by example", but when examples are cited rather than written statements from an independent third party, they are almost always to unreliable primary sources, which may sometimes be adequate in certain topics, but never are for living people. Yworo (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought as much. You have changed the subject. And no wonder; the phrase "cite by example" that you have scolded me about in the name of Reliable Sources doesn't exist there, or anywhere else in Wikipedia. It does not even come up in a Google search; you seem to have made it up. As to the rest of this, I strongly disagree with your assessment: none of the citations offered were "event announcements", and at least in the case of the Starwood program, fact checking DOES take place. And though literature produced by an organization may be a primary source for that organization, a bio about a speaker hosted by them may not be. Which is, again, moot, since all that was asserted was that a lecture took place in a particular year, supporting the fact that this lecturer began lecturing at least as early as that. No claim that this was a notable lecture, and there was no attempt to use the biographical info from this event as a source. Just a simple statement that the lecture did, indeed, occur in 1990. The question now is, why you are presenting this storm of technicalities so inappropriately, when the program of the event is so obviously a perfectly good citation for this narrow, non-subjective fact? And when can we move on, since it couldn't have less to do with a nomination for deletion based on notability? And by the way, if a book is notable, its author is notable. Maybe not as well known, but that's a different thing. Rosencomet (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability is not inherited. Having a notable book certainly helps make the author notable, but does not guarantee it. So far, the book itself has not yet been shown to be notable. There is one good review, but WP:NBOOK requires at least two: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." I won't respond to your accusations other than to say I am operating in good faith based on my deep understanding of our sourcing policies and just happen to use my own personal phrasing for some concepts. I've explained what I meant and pointed out the policies that clearly apply here. Again, the places to discuss these matters are on the biography of living people noticeboard and the reliable sources noticeboard. Please stop making long contentious arguments in the deletion discussion. Rather than just arguing with me, you should ask questions on those noticeboards, because that is where the consensus interpretation of policy is formed. I know fairly well what responses you will get about these issues, because I read the noticeboards regularly and used to participate in discussions about just these sorts of matters there. The points I am bringing are neither uninformed opinion or made up. Yworo (talk) 01:23, 8 December 20.11 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've seen nothing to change my view, expressed in the first AfD, that Kaczynski is legitimately recognized and noted as a leading Crowley expert.  In addition to the TLS review mentioned above, here is an article and interview of Kaczynski from the Norwegian daily Aftenposten which (per Google Translate) notes, "Many biographies are written about Crowley, but connoisseurs of new religious movements believe that "Perdurabo" by American Richard Kaczynski is best." Here he is, quoted just a few days ago in the Colombian magazine Semana. A GBooks search for  turns up loads of references and citations by other writers.  I don't see how it would help the encyclopedia, or a user who comes here trying to learn about the subject, to delete this article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What subject? The book? Crowley? There's nothing remarkable about the author. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, we are getting much closer. Just so folks know what is being aimed for, it's point 3 of WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." We have one review, the TLS review. We have the remark in Aftenposten, which if the article were actually a in-depth review of the book, we'd be done. All that is needed, in my opinion, is one more good in-depth review or several shorter reviews, though they would need to be in notable independent publications, not in any way associated with Kaczynski or OTO, to be convincing. Yworo (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no reason that such a review need be in a publication "not in any way associated with... OTO" any more than a review of a book about a Catholic theologian would have to be in a publication in no way associated with the Catholic Church. Kaczynski does not run the OTO. Actually, a publication from the OTO would carry MORE weight if reviewing either Perdurabo or The Weiser Concise Guide to Aleister Crowley. Rosencomet (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. Reviews in an OTO publication would not be independent for several reasons beside the fact that Kaczynski is a member. The OTO is small (1200 members according to its article). OTO is also not a religion, so the comparison to the Catholic Church is not apt in two ways. The correct comparison would be to a small company of similar size, whether profit or non-profit. If an employee or affiliate of a company produced a product, we would not count reviews or description of the product by the company to be independent. Plus, OTO is in the business of promoting Crowley, the subject of the book. I'm not saying they shouldn't be listed, but OTO makes money through events at which Kaczynski may lecture, and thus don't count as independent which is required for sources used to establish notability. Seriously, the involvement and conflict of interest here is deep. Yworo (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just about everything you say about the OTO in this section is wrong. It is not a company, nor comparable to it. Crowley is dead, so the OTO is not "promoting" him. The sentence "OTO makes money through events at which Kaczynski may lecture" is absurd, and the notion that a review of Kaczynski's book would therefor be unacceptable is ludicrous. This whole assessment is wrong-headed and misinformed. Rosencomet (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it a non-profit corporation, registered in California and with Federal non-profit status. And it charges its members for attendance at National Events, to pay for the venue and perhaps some of the speakers. Our conflict of interest policy is clear that being non-profit does is not an exception to conflict of interest. Yworo (talk)
 * The OTO is a religious organization, and like virtually every other religious organization including the Catholic Church, temples, synagogues, mosques, and all sorts of organizations with and without buildings has obtained 501c3 tax status; The OTO is no more a "company" than they are. Churches and synagogues often charge for memberships; some charge for seats at holiday services (mine does), and many other activities like plays, dinners, etc. Many pay speakers and musicians; priests, rabbis and other personnel are often paid employees. Many sell religious products as well. None of this means that membership in a religious tradition or organization makes a review in a publication associated with that tradition or organization a conflict of interest, although if the subject was on the staff of the publication, that would be different. A book written by an OTO member is not comparable to a product produced by an employee. A favorable review by a respected OTO publication of a book about Crowley would be exactly the source to cite; that's where the experts would be. What would be important would be the history of the publication and its approach to its reviews; of course, if it was merely a sales catalog and the book was available through it, or if it was an instrument of a small press which published the book, that would be a conflict of interest. But Kaczynsky's books have been published by Weiser, New Falcon Press, North Atlantic Books, etc, not OTO small presses (if there are such).
 * BTW, the OTO is an international organization; the figure you offered concerning membership is only for the United States Grand Lodge in 2008. OTO has existed for over 100 years, and did not originate in the U.S.Rosencomet (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: I haven't had a chance to review the most recent sources added, but this article is very close to satisfying notability requirements. If it looks like a "delete" to you, I'd suggest it be relisted to give a bit more time for improvement. Yworo (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Arxiloxos and Rodneyorpheus that there was really no reason to revive this old nomination for deletion, but now that it was done, the additions that have been made have updated and fleshed out the article. I have a couple other items to put in, but their official release date is 2012, so I will wait until they are published. I intend to keep improving the article as time goes on, and I believe other editors will as well. I think this one should be given a Keep and allowed to be worked on. Rosencomet (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. I agree with the various arguments presented above for a delete. As for the book Perdurabo, it is currently in less than 100 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. I am not sure this is a ringing endorsement of notability. If a subject is an expert in a very narrow topic, the combination of the subject’s notability and the topic’s notability should add up to a level that would justify an article on WP, which I don’t think is quite the case here. Perhaps a note in the Aleister Crowley article, under a section titled something like “Biographers”, would be more appropriate.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. It is always tough for guys in, ahem, less academically respected fields.  However, my view tends to be that even if the world thinks they are a quack, if they are a leading quack in their field, then I guess they deserve their article under WP:ACADEMIC.  I won't cry though if it gets deleted. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not quite the leading quack in this field, IMO. I really don't think this is up for deletion because us Wikipedians think all occultists are un-mentionworthy (I don't!!), it's because this specific author doesn't meet the notability requirements, regardless of the field. Most of his article has nothing to do with what some say he's notable for, the book. The article itself has no encyclopedic value (IMHO). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A biographical article should not be limited to "what some say he's notable for". If a subject is notable, and I believe this one is, the article should be a short biography, including items relevant to the subject, not just his best-known feature. Biographies throughout Wikipedia reflect this; they include birth date and location, marital status & offspring, education and employment, and all sorts of facts about the subject regardless of whether they impact on his most famous attribute. I don't think examples should be necessary for such a simple fact, but hundreds if not thousands are available. And though Perdurabo is his best known book, it is hardly his only written work.Rosencomet (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, of course; I meant it's unlikely his biography would be of interest to anyone (but a select few people), even those who are interested in his book. Repeating what I said above: The article would benefit from proof of feedback his writings and lectures have received (i.e., has he had any actual impact?). It'd also benefit from some general descriptions of his work or his views, or anything like that. (I'm not suggesting that the article is incomplete and needs improvement, I'm suggesting it's unlikely we'll find third-party sources that give sufficient feedback on his work. And that's what we'd actually need to establish notability.) — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your point is taken, but since this discussion started we've already found several valuable third-party sources, despite several protestations beforehand that they didn't exist. My point all along has been that instead of spending time and energy yelling for deletion, effort is much better spent in improving the article by going out and finding good sources. We don't improve Wikipedia by reducing the amount of information in it, we improve it by creating better articles. And this one is considerably better now than it was just a couple of weeks ago, thanks to the efforts of all involved. However I'm starting to feel like we're trying to aim at a moving target - each time an editor has asked for a new source or a revision of some part of the article, once that's been supplied then suddenly it appears that that isn't sufficient after all and the article now needs something else. While I applaud the effort to continually upgrade an article's quality, I have to ask, can we get a very clear specific listing of what this article still needs in order to satisfy everyone, with valid justification quoting specific WP policies, so we can all see exactly what is currently lacking and work to tackle those specific requirements. I think that would help considerably in us achieving a good consensus on this.--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just discovered I don't have the article on my watchlist; wasn't aware of the changes. (Though in any case, if it's my opinion that the article should be deleted then I'm not going to take that kind of time that you suggested that I should take to improve the article, that's nonsensical. I have more important articles to do research for.) — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep on basis of review in Times Literary Supplement: as notable as it gets. He gets an h-index of 15 for his dentistry, which is close to a pass of WP:Prof on that alone. Wikipedia should be proud to have an article on an occult dentist. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:40, 16 December 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.