Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Robin Artisson

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:

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Son_of_art&action=history

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. &mdash;Ravenflight
 * I wouldn't call this article objective, either. It states that Artisson has had a positive influence on neo-paganism and refers to opposition groups as "nasty," which is blatantly POV. If you want this article to stay, I suggest you review NPOV and revise accordingly.
 * I would also request that we limit this discussion to an assessment of Mr. Artisson's claims to notability. This is not Encyclopedia Dramatica, and what goes on there is not Wikipedia business. Madame Sosostris 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This forum is for putting arguments for and against the deletion of this article. It is a very salient fact that the person who is calling for the deletion has created and edited libelous articles that are mean-spirited attacks on Robin Artisson. Her reasons for calling for this delete are not objective nor in the best interest of Wikipedia. The Wiki staff have the right to know what she has done against Robin in other places. &mdash;Ravenflight
 * Salient, yes. Relevant, no. Does the question of Mr. Artisson's notability hinge on whether or not someone on another site dislikes him?
 * Regardless of Ashley Y's reasons, the question has been raised. It will be addressed according to Wikipedia policy. Madame Sosostris 20:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This user's edit history strongly suggests this is a Robin Artisson sock puppet. --Modemac 20:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have only edited a single article- the one I wrote about Robin. I'm not a sockpuppet. Nor is "toadsboon" a sockpuppet; the Wiki staff can see that our IP's are different, and that Toadsboon has been working here in other times and places, before I arrived. &mdash;Ravenflight


 * This user's edit history strongly suggests this is a Robin Artisson sock puppet. --Modemac 20:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I can surely think for myself. It is I who brought his attention to this. Toadsboon 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is not self-aggrandizement; nothing written in the article is untrue. And this article bullies no one; the people who have started this motion to delete are the only ones that could rightly be suspected of bullying, based on what they have said and done at another wiki-type website. Mr. Artisson would welcome any statements being added to this article, so long as they followed Wiki's rules of civility and they were not libel. &mdash;Ravenflight

These statements are patently false. They are lies, libel, and you have no evidence for any of them. Also, you are being extremely uncivil and making empty personal attacks. This is common behavior, it seems. The Wikipedia rules forbid this. &mdash;Ravenflight

Please take comments and flames to the discussion page, please. --Modemac 20:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So... calling someone "a first class asshole" isn't a flame? Calling someone a "Troll" and a "Troublemaker" isn't a "flame"? Why don't you take that to the "discussions" page? It seems that you may be a sockpuppet of some of the people who have started this. &mdash;Ravenflight
 * Modemac referred to Robin Artisson as "a first class asshole", not you. Or are you Robin Artisson? &mdash;Ashley Y 20:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no proof that he has done any of the things accused of. What may or may not happen outside of Wikipedia shouldn't matter to the article. The only reason this article is up for deletion is because of certain people with personal vendettas against people whom they could not out-argue on a silly Yahoo Group. Toadsboon 22:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What may or may not happen outside of Wikipedia shouldn't matter to the article. I couldn't agree more. In the interests of keeping things civilized, I propose that we all just forget about anything Artisson-related that happens outside of Wikipedia. That goes for BOTH sides, mind.
 * I'd also like to point out that the question of Mr. Artisson's notability is not a value judgment. We need to be sure that we're not taking this debate personally. Madame Sosostris 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Do Not Delete ...... I have accessed winkipedia before but this is the first issue to get me fired up enough to join up.

I oppose the propoesd deletion. Robin is controversial- especially if one reads some of his earlier stuff-. The vehemence of his opponents conceals a lack of substance to their arguments.

I have read most of his online materia and can affirm from my own scholarship that it is work of merit and depth. Being the cynical lawyer that I am I trawled the net to see if the accusations against him held water. OK the guy can be forceful in what he says and an unbiased jury might, on a bad day, find him guilty of rudeness but his accusers would face the same verdict if not worse. For example the accusation of copyright violations are unsupported by anything more than a mix of innuendo and the wishful thinking of his opponents.

As regards self publication I gather new prints of his first book and all prints of subsequents books will have an ISBN number which lifts the books to a highet plane in terms of publishing. AS the years have rolled by and I have read more and more of his on line material and await the revised version of his first book before I purchase.

As I said I am something of a cynic and demand a high level of erudition before I buy or indeed support an author. Robin meets these criteria and in my view will be considered a significant occult writer when his critics are largely forgotten even by their followers.

The author of the piece while favorable to Robin is obviously not a sock puppet. Robins flawes are averted to and while praise is given where deserved it is never given in the tones of flattery.

A worthy addition to the encyclopedia should not be deleted because of such criticisms as have been presented. The unbiased user deserves to be able to access an informative reference to an interesting person SEOD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seod (talk • contribs)

I've specifically created an account to request that information pertaining to Robin Artisson please be deleted. Under the alias of "son_of_art", Robin has repeatedly and over many on-line communities attempted to incite hate against a spectrum of religions. Further to this, the majority of information posted as fact is often distorted. Attempts by others to correct this information, including citation of sources, have been met with censorship and deletion, both of their words and of his own that have led to them. Myself and others that I represent are unsure if such a history would violate the Wikipedia rules, but are of the belief that it would violate it's spirit. Please consider these words, this is not an attempt at slander though it must seem so. I and the others are just deeply concerned that such an article would help make it appear that the information he expresses is factual and further than that, are deeply concerned about the religious intolerance that would follow. Thank you. Comber 20:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of the history "Robin Artisson" (itself a pseudonym, as he refuses to publicize his real name) presents to online and Pagan communities. However, this isn't the forum to discuss such things.  Articles exist for Osama bin Laden and Eric Robert Rudolph; religious hatred is not an automatic bar to notability for the purposes of this project.  That said, the decision has been made not to include an article on Mr. "Artisson" at this time.  The subject of the article presently fails the notability test.  I should add that the poll for this AfD has been closed for some time now. -- SwissCelt 21:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not realise that it was so old and did not see that a decision had been made, sorry to have brought up an old issue. The concern was mostly for proliferation of false information that would lead to incited hatred. Both the articles you mention, state the individuals involved are terrorists. The concern was that if listed, or given no cautionary statement as such, that the views expressed would be reflected as truthful. Again my apologies and thank you for the response. Comber 23:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Here is what I feel and see in Mr. Artissan. One I knew that was not his real name. Two,. I joined his yahoo group last night and had seven join documents sent to me. Now as they are copy right protected I cannot quote them. However what he is teaching is (yet) another form of Wicca, to which he states he doesn't really give much credit to. Another is the intentional fostering of malice and antagonism to other 'monotheistic religions'. It is in his rule lists and other welcome documents and all one has to do is join the group to find out for themselves. That is a fact..pure and simple.75.92.64.154 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Amanda O.