Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Brezsny


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Rob Brezsny

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources for this biography may have passed muster when it was created in 2008, but they don't now. It has superficial referenciness, but there is a lack of sources which achieve the Wikipedia trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary. Google finds press releases masquerading as articles, non-independent PR bios and little else. The closest to a substantive claim to notability is writing a single song that was later recorded by Jefferson Starship (but was never a single or B-side). Guy (Help!) 12:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete on balance. I can't really see the depth of coverage we need. (I'm inclined to think World Entertainment War isn't noable either.) This seems to me to be a person with a bit of profile in local media, a part in the writing of a not very prominent song by a prominent group... and that's about it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Torrents of coverage in regional/alternative media. User talk:Inspiratrix provides a list; I dipped into the sections on the astrology column and Pronoia and five of the first six I checked were published articles all about him. I assume there are more that could be used to add detail and evidence of notability to the article, so in my view he passes GNG and/or NAUTHOR. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a singer/songwriter he has performed in notable bands including World Entertainment War and written songs performed by Jefferson Starship. As an author he has been in continuous weekly publication for over 40 years in over 120 journals throughout the United States. His book "Pronoia is the Antidote for Paranoia" may in fact be the first and only book on the subject of pronoia. In the guidelines for notability at Notability_(people) one of the criteria it lists for authors is "has won significant critical attention". Here is a sampling of the critical attention Brezsny's works have won:


 * "Brilliant! Absorbing! Wildly useful! Rob Brezsny gets my nomination for best prophet in a starring role. He's a script doctor for the soul." - Marisa Tomei, Academy Award-winning actress
 * "A book so weird it just might drive you stark raving sane." - Robert Anton Wilson
 * “I’ve seen the future of American literature and its name is Rob Brezsny.” - novelist Tom Robbins
 * “Brezsny holds his own place next to cultural shamans like Robert Anton Wilson, Timothy Leary, William Burroughs, and Ken Kesey.” - Popmatters.com
 * “The prose is poetic, circular, dancing, combining the narrative voices of Anais Nin, Tom Robbins, and David Ignatow.” - Rain Taxi
 * “Rob Brezsny is contemporary literature’s Sage Against the Machine.” - Good Times, Santa Cruz, CA
 * “What Rob Brezsny does with words is grammarye, the Old English term for magic. With his strange brew of macho feminism and poetic rationalism, Brezsny weaves a yarn crazy enough to be true and real enough to subvert the literalist virus of cynicism now immobilizing the collective mindscape.” - Antero Alli, author of Astrologik, Angel Tech, and The Vertical Oracle
 * “Millions of people already live their lives in accordance with Rob Brezsny’s ‘Free Will Astrology’ prophecies. But the time has come for a deeper dose of Brezsny’s brain. Enter this temple if you dare!” - David Ulansey, author of The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries

Ronald Joe Record (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe the individual meets NAUTHOR requirements, with considerable published material, and is cited by others in his specialised field. I think this is more a question of article improvement. Irondome (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Marginal notability and tenuous sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep He seems fairly notable in his fields and there are a wealth of third party sources that cover him in detail over a long period of time. He might not be world-famous to a general audience but he isn't obscure either and seems to meet the standards in WP:N for inclusion. WRT to the nominator's statement, my understanding is that notability is not temporary; the fact that he was notable in 2008 doesn't mean that he is not notable 10 years later. Alicb (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC) — Alicb (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak keep - I think I'm just on the other side of Andy Dingley on this: barely notable, and sourcing just passes muster. I wouldn't cry if it was deleted, but I do think it squeaks over the line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has two books that both qualify as notable books (in that they have multiple non-trivial reviews in independent sources). 2620:22:4000:1201:1FFE:FC68:2A37:15FF (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC) — 2620:22:4000:1201:1FFE:FC68:2A37:15FF (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Widely published national astrology in independent weekly newspapers along with several published books to his name. Seems like a no brainer to keep the article and just remove the problematic material. Markandeya~enwiki (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC) — Markandeya~enwiki (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Secondary source coverage appears to be featured in the article, although it may not be as independent as I might like, I suspect that stems from very little coverage of astrologers outside their field. It is seems adequate for WP:N and WP:RS. --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the most extensively syndicated columnists in his field. His byline has appeared in newspapers for decades. Far exceeds any reasonable standards of notability.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – Brezsny is notable within his field and is widely published - also has multiple books, published in multiple languages and he passes GNG. I believe the issue is that this article needs better editing and better sources, not simply deletion. Jooojay (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject is notable within his field. Carrite (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources linked at User talk:Inspiratrix. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's a list of sources concerning my work and career: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inspiratrix#Sources_for_research Inspiratrix (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Inspiratrix (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that the editor above is apparently the subject of the article under discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, Beyond My Ken. Just hoping to offer useful information. Inspiratrix (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend my comment to be in any way pejorative, just informational for those who haven't been following the discussion at AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk)
 * @Inspiratrix (talk). Although I have indicated a preference to keep what appears to be your article, I would suggest that such self-promotion lacks a certain class and patronises fellow editors. We are all capable of weighing sources as per notablity guidelines. I still believe that "you" pass WP:NOTABLE, but such posts as above seems desperate. Tone it down and let the community decide, if you would be so kind. Ta. Irondome (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, Irondome. I apologize for being unfamiliar with Wikipedia etiquette. I thought if I provided sources for research, it would help the discussion. But I'm fine with going along with your suggestion. I'll delete it. Later note: I did delete it, but it seems to have returned. Not sure why. Beyond My Ken or Irondome, feel free to delete it. Inspiratrix (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Inspiratrix (talk)
 * I undeleted it. It's generally the case (although there are exceptions) that once a comment has been responded to, it should not be deleted.  You can strike through a comment you wish to withdraw, using the and tags at the beginning at the end of it, but deleting it turns  the responses into non sequitors.  It also goes against the general principle of transparency on Wikipedia.  Comments can be altered, even after they've been responded to, but, again, that should be done in such a way as to make it obvious that it's been changed.  Like octopus this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that info.Inspiratrix (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I have no idea about any of the other stuff, but he does seem to be notable in his role as an astrology columnist published in many alt-weeklies for many years, and a somewhat unique approach to the subject... AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - almost certainly one of the best known in his "business". Bearian (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2018 (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.