Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Artisson


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Robin Artisson
Non-notable, possible vanity &mdash;Ashley Y 19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've just recived an email on the helpdesk from someone claiming to be the subject of the article. They said that they wanted the article deleted. They also stated that the photos are copyvios. Something we will need to sort out.Geni 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete

 * Strong Delete Relatively insignificant internet persona with a diminutive and derivative literary contribution to the genre, but obviously a legend in his own mind. -HroptR 02:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per HroptR &mdash;Ashley Y 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The book is self-published, the articles are "upcoming" (i.e., I can't find them anywhere) and he's well-known on LiveJournal. Madame Sosostris 20:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Robin Artisson is a well-known troll and troublemaker who has spammed, mailbombed, and harassed dozens (if not hundreds) of pagan-oriented mailing lists, usergroups, Livejournal communities, causing many of them to shut down. But being a first-class asshole is not notable enough to warrant an entry in Wikipedia. --Modemac 20:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vertigo 21:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wingedelf. Kusma (討論) 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Madame Sosostris. Notability not established. Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BIO and per Madame Sosostris.  Jkelly 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per above, fails WP:BIO and not encyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 00:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; Non-notable bio. Tom Harrison Talk 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Whateley23 02:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity Page, or close enough as makes no difference. Kd5mdk 02:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BIO and per Madame Sosostris, Modemac and Kd5mdk. Kathryn NicDhàna 04:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete until such time as there is sufficient mention of the man from respectable (and identifiable) sources in the literature. Currently he only has faceless internet entities vouching for him. If however this article is kept, it will need a lot of editing. The whole thing reads as if it has been posted by Robin himself or else a very uncritical fan of his. Too much waxing lyrical; too many relatively unimportant details that serve only to bolster his image; not enough hard facts. It all smacks of POV. Personally, I would like to find out more about Robin Artisson, to find out whether his information has any good sources or whether it is invented. I remember emailing him a couple of years ago trying to find his source (and a tune) for a song (Dick Darvall's song), but receiving no reply. There's plenty of other stuff that really grabs my interest, like his mention of "Dame Hyldor" as a name for the Goddess in (Northern England? I forget... he mentions it somewhere on his Meadows of Elfhame site). I would like to know whether these are his own inventions/intuitions or whether they pre-exist him. Given his claims of not believing in oaths of secrecy, we should be able to come up with a bit more concrete information to tie him down. Also, I note that many of the posts in the anti-deletion camp have remarkably similar wording and language patterns. I think I might pop over to one of Artisson's sites and compare with some of his writing there! (This is partly copied from my post to Talk:Robin Artisson, but I've changed my conclusion a bit since then.) Fuzzypeg 12:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * going by the emails I'm getting it isn't Robin Artisson.Geni 13:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. No proof of any real notability.  LiveJournal fame is not sufficient.  Despite claims of widespread fame/notoriety in the neopagan world, neither myself nor my neopagan friends have heard of him. —Matthew Brown(T:C) 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment to Matthew Brown: You've heard of him now. And that, I think, is the point. For someone who is called "not notable" by the "delete" crowd, he seems to have the power to cause quite a ruckuss, and invoke quite a lot of emotion out of quite a lot of people. And for someone who isn't known or notable, a lot of people here seem to know him- and even know enough about him to tell us all what multiple crimes he's alleged to have committed, etc. Yeah... he's well known for being "not notable"- notable, after all, is a rather neutral term, to "be of note" doesn't imply anything automatically positive or negative, nor is there some objective standard for who is "notable" when it comes to fringe communities and alternative communities like the heterogeneous neopagan world. jontelpo


 * Delete per Jkelly -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per everybody else. --King of All the Franks 00:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete

 * Do not Delete This man has a large online presence, and thousands of people have purchased his book. He has contributed to articles upcoming in "The Cauldron", one of Britain's most read occult magazines, as well as "Pentacle" in the UK. He is published in the "Pagan Awareness Network" journal in Australia. He is a well-known personality in the neopagan world. Despite the clear attacks of the people who don't want to see him here for their own personal reasons and vendettas, his name and writings are well known in neopagan circles, and I thought he deserved an article. The user who called for this deletion is "Ashley Y", a person who also uses the Wikipedia rip-off and trash site "Encyclopedia Dramatica", where she has made countless libelous statements against Robin Artisson. You can see them here in the history page of the article made against him there:  The user "Swisscelt" has also tried to smear him at that site, and you can look at that history page and see his name, as well. Both of these users have personal grudges against Robin. They are not objective. Many authors and artists choose to self-publish for reasons of creative control. Being self-published is still published. People voting against this article- like Modemac  have already made personal attacks against Robin, calling him a "troll" and an "asshole". This is a violation of Wiki's rules, and troll-like behavior, evidence of the true motivations of people trying to remove this article. There is not a shred of verifiable evidence that Robin has spammed "hundreds" or even "dozens" of groups, anywhere. &mdash;Ravenflight
 * Comment: You can plainly see I've not voted on this motion, nor will I (it appears my vote will be unnecessary anyway). I'd appreciate it if you not attempt to turn this into a smear campaign against me.  Thank you. -- SwissCelt 05:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please Do Not Delete Robin Artisson deserves to be represented here as well as any other author without being attacked. Toadsboon 20:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete

 * Delete The only thing Robin Artisson is well-known for is trolling pagan communities, harrassing journalists in their own journals, and the ever infamous photoshopped picture of Christopher Trottier to include a Nazi symbol.  The only thing Robin Artisson has ever been noted for is his detatchment from reality.  Savara
 * User's first edit. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete If the bar is set so low as to allow self-published authors to use Wikipedia as another one of many channels of self-aggrandizement and bully-pulpit we've served no public good. At very least, it should be deemed unacceptable for the subject to be author and editor of what amounts to his own mini-biography, and Artisson seems unlikely to allow others to pass judgement or comment negatively upon himself. &mdash;Wingedelf
 * User's third edit. Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete PLEASE This is written solely to bolster RA's ego. &mdash;mysticalyon 16:28, 17 January 2006 (EST, Canada)Above vote by .
 * User's first edit. Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - as he has in his own Son of Art group "secret supporters," in various groups to keep an eye on anyone speaking against him. He has a severe messiah complex, and if you ask for resources, he'll attack you with such immaturity that he isn't taken seriously in the pagan community. Most of the "Do not delete" are his sock puppets, or secret supporters. He bases his work on Nigel Jackson, whom his history is as mis-guided as Margaret Murray's, and the "mystically inclined" is as much nonsense as his "recovery" of ancient lore. In otherwords, he's making stuff up. I've seen him troll, and his Michael Quirke that's "a traditional pagan" is in fact, a christian, who tells the old stories. So, added on, is liar. He is self-publicized, meaning no publisher would take him seriously more than likely. Also, he bases his work on R.J. Stewart, whom is a very new-age author. His online group is only an ego boosting, and his "wealth" of knowledge is shotty, poorly researched, or just plain off. DELETE him, and let him get a dose of reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.96.243 (talk • contribs)
 * User's seventh edit. What's our threshold for new user votes, ten? Madame Sosostris 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If the closing admin does the right thing, it is not a pure vote at all, and a well-reasoned argument by a first-time user is more important than an unexplained vote by someone with five thousand edits. That aside, there is no hard-and-fast rule about "AfD suffrage".  Jkelly 17:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that way, just don't read his work. It's not meant for the spiritually desolate agnostic anyway. It must be horrible to not believe anything unless it's been on National Geographic thirty plus times. I also don't think being an armchair anthropologist such as RA dissenters are qualifies one to say what is true and what isn't just because they haven't had the blessing of learning outside of their Google searches and Ronald Hutton books (who actually likes Robin's work! !gasp!). Toadsboon 07:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And currently, he has only faceless internet entities trying to get him banned! How dare you insult those of us who actually are quite intelligent by the way, with the same old rhetoric and lies about not being real people? Everyone who has posted here for Robin is indeed genuine and our IP's can be verified. Take your mudslinging elsewhere.If you do not know where Hyldor comes from nor what it means, you really show your lack of knowledge regarding the subject of witchery. Go back to school or do a Google search.Personally, I have noticed many of the posts for the pro-deletion camp are remerkably similar. Hmm. One might wonder why! Marilyn, Moonflwr_13@yahoo.com --Moonflwr 13:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying that you aren't real. We're only saying that you are not an established Wikipedia user, and therefore your vote does not count as much as those from people who've been here for a while and contributed to the project. I regret that you find this insulting, but these are the principles upon which we operate; I humbly suggest that you find another encyclopedia if this one is not to your taste. Madame Sosostris 15:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was simply responding and referring to various comments made by someone here, not to Wikipedia policy. So, let the article on Robin be edited and "polished up" if you wish, but please do not delete it. Thanks. --Moonflwr 02:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete

 * Please DO NOT Delete Robin is a gentleman and very well known to every neo-pagan that I personally know. His self-published book has sold tons of copies and I believe that he is more than notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. He is already weighing offers from several mainstream publishers.&mdash;Rivethead28
 * User's first edit. Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not delete. Robins works have been enjoyed by many these past few years and he certainly IS a notable character in the pagan community, whether one agrees with his discussion style, or ritual methods and history or not. Both his internet writings/poetry, and now his hard copy full length book have proved to be workable or at least inspiring to many. Ashley_y has stated in her own entry that she is nothing more than a "fiddler" and corrector, and not noted for originality. Swisscelt has been whining in blogs now for ages about Robin,and now has come here for another unprovoked attack. These negative votes seem to violate all the criteria set by Wiki for manners on deletion. :unrulywitch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unrulywitch (talk • contribs)
 * User's second edit. Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE! I have seen this "Ashley Y" attack Mr. Artisson relentlessly in several other on line communities, as well as the rest of the "deleters" This harassment includes libelous and false information to this Encyclopedia Dramatica entry, to spread vicious lies about him across the internet, to anywhere they could find to spam the link. I am forced to wonder if others of the same mind such as Swisscelt, have been asked to help in the deletion of this valid article, for the sole purpose of causing drama where it is not appropriate. Mr. Artisson is a very well respected Pagan author in my community, and several neopagan bookstores are currently carrying "The Witching Way Of The Hollow Hill", which has been heralded as one of the most profoundly meaningful works, rivaling that of the Masters. I do hope the Wiki Staff recognizes the extreme conflict of interest in regards to these "pro-deletion" comments, and takes swift action to prevent further vandalism to this wonderful article. I fail to see how and "Pro-Artisson" camments can be catagorized as personal attacks, when the sole purpose here of all of the people that want this article deleted is a misguided personal vandetta/attack. If you don't appreciate Mr. Artisson's ground-breaking work, then you are free not to view this article,and voice your opinions about him in your own blog, or whatever it is you have. I attend many Pagan gatherings and nearly every person I meet for the first time is aquainted with and acknowledges the importance of Robin's work, and he is quite notable, I assure you. I do hope the Wiki staff sees these personal attacks for what they are. This man has sold a great deal of books, and has been authoring many on line articles for years. To even consider he is not "notable" is laughable, and an obvious attempt at censorship. AGAIN:DO NOT DELETE... --Lupinespirit
 * (sighs). User's second edit. Verbiage will get you nowhere. Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: A well-reasoned argument that the article meets our inclusion guidelines would, in my book, get someone somewhere. This is supposed to be a discussion... Jkelly 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's a sockpuppet of the article creator, and it doesn't provide any proof. Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC) You mention that Artisson's book "has been heralded as one of the most profoundly meaningful works, rivaling that of the Masters". I suggest you give us a reference for this, if it is from a source that is at all reputable, because that's exactly the kind of fact that if established could help to save the article. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't operate based on a show of hands, but based on documentary evidence. Fuzzypeg 12:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop the perosnal attacks. I saw the announcement in Mr. Artisson's Son Of Art Yahoo 500 memeber discussion community yesterday, and saw the deletion notice today and was shocked. Yes I joined today, so what? Is it so unreasonable that a reader of Mr. Artisson's would come in here and ask the article not be deleted? I thought this was a discussion on that very topic, and did not realize that one had to be a ling time member such as swisscelt to vote. That seems to be a wee bit prejududical to me. I read the article, I joined to vote, end of story. Please pedal your conspiracy theories elsewhere. Lupinespirit (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This edit shows that you are a sockpuppet of banned user User:Ravenflight. &mdash;Ashley Y 00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We are "prejudiced," if you must call it that, in favor of those who have made significant contributions to the Wikipedia project. Those who have not will not be taken seriously. Madame Sosostris 01:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was using the edit feature for a templete. I don't even know who ravenwhatever is! Here i wont put anything but text...Do that help you any? I thought this place banned by IP anyway? Why is my account still here? Is that how youplan to carry out your censorship, by pointing fingers at people and calling them 3 grade names? This is a valid article, get over it. User=Lupinespirit


 * PLEASE DO NOT DELETE, I enjoy reading the articles that Robin Artisson writes and was very pleased to see a short bio of him here on Wikipedia. Please don't delete this..Tezcatlipocasgirl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezcatlipocasgirl (talk • contribs)
 * User's first edit. &mdash;Ashley Y 00:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (from Talk:Robin Artisson): ANYONE that could possibly want Robin off the list couldn't have possibly read one of the Newest True Masterpieces of Traditonal Craft "The Witching Way of Hollow Hill"! I've been reading and practicing our Austrian Family brand of Traditional ways for year and have read not only most of the mainstream fluff but those that most would believe are factually researched and historically correct! Many who have read his book, as new as it is, are already calling this their Pagan brand of Bible(for lack of a better word)! I AGREE! Robin is one of the Best writers on Spiritual Mysteries in our Modern era attested by his Fast growing fan base! Even if it is taken off, Robin will be a continue to be a Major Player and Occult Author long after his removal! He's a true survivor and one that many are green with envy over! To Remove Robin would be giving in to the mainstream popular new age authors! UNFAIR Indeed! I VOTE KEEP THIS ARTICLE on WIKIPEDIA!   Crowshifter / John K  January 17, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowshifter (talk • contribs).
 * User's second edit. Mackensen (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do NOT delete! Robin is a very wonderful and talented man with a vast wealth of knowledge regarding European paganism as well as history. I have been on this heathen path for over thirty of my forty years and have learned quite a bit myself. I can say with all honesty that Robin knows his subject extremely well, more so than 99% of the pagan authors out there. I find it sad that a few naysayers who do not like him because he dares to disagree with them are allowed to harass and slander him wherever he goes. It irks such people to no end to see the truth about Robin and be brought face to face with their lies. Talk about a detachment from reality! Leave him alone and go find someone else to bully. Robin's work, writings and websites can and do stand on their own. If you don't like it, don't read it! But please do not try to censor him and spread lies. It will only come back to bite you in the backside. Also, Wikipedia can validate my IP if they wish and see that I am a real person, not a puppet, thankyou very much. Marilyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonflwr (talk • contribs)
 * User's first edit. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not delete: he does some wonderful stuff, well researched. I enjoyed his book and want to see him write more. thepixeltypo (Morgy)* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepixeltypo (talk • contribs)
 * User's first edit. Mackensen (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. You've heard of him now. And that, I think, is the point. For someone who is called "not notable" by the "delete" crowd, he seems to have the power to cause quite a ruckuss, and invoke quite a lot of emotion out of quite a lot of people. And for someone who isn't known or notable, a lot of people here seem to know him- and even know enough about him to tell us all what multiple crimes he's alleged to have committed, etc. Yeah... he's well known for being "not notable"- notable, after all, is a rather neutral term, to "be of note" doesn't imply anything automatically positive or negative, nor is there some objective standard for who is "notable" when it comes to fringe communities and alternative communities like the heterogeneous neopagan world. jontelpo
 * Please read Verifiability, for an explanation of why we cannot yet conclude Robin Artisson to be a notable figure. We need mention of him from a reputable published source (and not, of course, just from his own books). If he is well known to a large online community of witches then there's a good chance that at some stage soon he will appear in someone's book or article on the subject, however we have to wait for that primary research to appear first (see No original research). Now I've always felt that magic and witchcraft are essentially esoteric activities not suited for the mainstream anyway (learning about magic can only be done by learning to dig deeper than the surface, searching for more than what's presented up front). I know well the fringe community of magical New Zealand, and some of the communities of parts of England and Australia. The most proficient occultists (and those who have been most influential in the magical and pagan scenes) tend not to enter the spotlight. How many pages will you find doing a web search for Michael Freedman? How many for Paula Jacobs-Wedo? How many for Jack Taylor? Very few, although their influence in New Zealand, through their orders, schools and students has had a huge effect in shaping NZ's occult community. (They do however appear in a few reputable books on the subject.) So don't worry too much if there's currently not enough documentation on Artisson to support an article. It should be forthcoming fairly quickly if he has such a strong following. In the meantime, unless you're hoping to convert a whole load of people, I wouldn't worry too much. Fuzzypeg 12:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know that this is "quite a ruckus" -- you didn't see the multiple GNAA deletion votes. By Wikipedia standards, this is a tiny, tiny little dust-up. How many votes are on this page, anyway -- fewer than fifty altogether? I wouldn't call that "quite a lot of people." Hell, everyone keeps mentioning that 500-member Yahoo group, and I wouldn't call that "quite a lot of people."
 * Internet phenomena and personalities show up on Wikipedia, of course -- look at Something Awful, for instance -- but generally they have to be very well-known, to where they're mentioned by multiple large media outlets (print or online). Artisson fails the Google test, since most of the hits you get on his name are from his own sites or those of his friends.
 * I'm not saying that he won't be notable, someday in the future. However, right now he's really only "well-known" to the people who've encountered him personally. The fact that those people have strong opinions about him isn't really news. Madame Sosostris 15:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE He puts out some wonderful stuff. More researched than most of the 'wiccan' authors. Keep the entry like it is. ¥ Bird* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuckoo bird (talk • contribs)
 * User's first edit. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:39, 19 January 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.