Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Zalewski (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. MBisanz talk 21:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Zalewski

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Pat Zalewski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My search doesn't show that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR, WP:MANOTE, or WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No real secondary sources describing his work as an author, no book reviews, nothing at all. Just a citation of someone else using his work as a reference. That doesn't add up to notability. Gamaliel (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The previous AFD was not helpful in shedding any light as to why it would have so many keeps despite the lack of reliable sources. Considering that WP:AUTHOR has become more rigid since then, and despite his large body of work, there has been no real substantiated assertion of notability. As such, I'm inclined side with delete unless someone is able to track down multiple reliable sources. Mkdwtalk 20:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete not entirely comfortable with that...as I can verify that the book written by Robert Ellwood in 1993 and cited in article exists[1] AGF on content and that he was inducted into the NZ hall Martial Arts hall of Fame [2] in 2000, Hall of Fame does indicate notability within the Association and should be sufficient in establishing notability but WP:NSPORT doesnt make that leap for any sport. Given both of these sources add to it that he competed pre-internet makes it difficult. International_Traditional_Karate_Federation article does match the [letter=N#text the ITKF site] but neither show NZ as a member, which is troubling in that a non-member country is unlikely to be able to compete, though I do concede membership can wain over time. Gnangarra 00:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Book by Professor Robert Ellwood has no mention of Pat Zalewski within it.
  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There needs to be more sourcing and the article needs to be pared down, but there should be enough secondary sources out there, as far as this particular niche goes. His work is cited in many books on the subject. Anyone familiar with this subject area knows Zalewski is notable in the field. ^^James^^ (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self promotion by author.
  • Keep I agree with ^^James^^ that the article needs paring down, but here is a preliminary list of secondary sources. They should be added to the article as refs.
  2. Tree of Life, (Regardie, ed. Cicero) - Citations to Secret Inner Rituals of the Golden Dawn, 2 endnotes.
  4. Godwin's Cabalistic Encyclopedia (Godwin) - Bibliography/Reading List, Secret Inner Rituals of the Golden Dawn
  6. Tarot and the Magus (Paul Huges-Barlow), five in-line references: 2 References to Z1- 0=0 Neophyte Ritual, 1 Reference to The Equinox Rituals of the Golden Dawn, Paragrpah quotation from Z1, Paragrpah quotation from Secret Inner Order Rituals of the Golden Dawn.
  8. History of the Occult Tarot (Ronald Drecker, Michael A.E. Dummett), Reference, Z-5 Secret Teachings of the Golden Dawn

I believe this is enough to satisfy the requirement of WP:AUTHOR for 2nd party references in printed books by commercial publishing houses, in particular the first two. JMax555 (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since these are not online and available for inspection, could you be so kind as to update your citations to identify the publishers and add some quotations from these sources to give us an idea what they have to say about the subject? It's one thing to be a minor footnote and another to run for several pages discussing his life. Msnicki (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those refs were obtained through Google Books (search for "Pat Zalewski" and check the books not authored by him), so all the publishing info and page numbers can be obtained on line, with a little digging. I'm happy to do it, and actually planned to in the text of the article itself. It takes a little doing, one has to find the refs in Google Books, note the page number and re-type the text from the page scans, and then go find the ISBN numbers and publishing info by looking them up on Amazon or Barnes & Noble. (Two of those cites are several quoted passages from Zalewski's books.) But doing all that work will take time, and I have a real life, so if this AfD stays open long enough, I will try. "Several pages discussing his life" is not a necessary criteria for notability (though it certainly counts); if an author's works are referenced and quoted by multiple 2nd party sources, the ref doesn't need to be biographical per se. Of course, biographical info used in an article must itself be properly sourced (for example, a bio that's part of the author's published book is generally satisfactory, since it was created by the publishing company's editorial staff.) I think that footnotes and cites, while not notable individually, indicate notability if there are a lot of them in many other author's works. JMax555 (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found book references 1,2, and 4 at amazon.com and Zalewski is not mentioned in the text in any of them. In book 1 he's quoted in the introduction and has a source in the 7 page bibliography for it. In book 2 his only mention is among 60 or so books in the bibliography, and in book 4 he is mentioned twice in the hundreds of footnotes that take up 42 pages and once in the 7 page bibliography which has 100+ references. None of this looks like it meets WP:AUTHOR nor did I find anything to show he's notable as a martial artist (WP:MANOTE) or has the significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I went and searched Google to find the links and look at these sources. 1 is just a couple of endnotes citing a few pages in one of the subject's books without comment. 2 just includes his book at the end of a long list of other books, also without comment. 3 has 5 hits inside the book (click view all); one says his books are useful, two offer a couple sentences about something the subject believes about the Golden Dawn and the General Exordium (whatever that is) and the remaining two just list a couple of his books. 4 is just yet another bare citation. These are the essence of trivial mentions. They're far from the in-depth coverage it takes to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the WP guideline in WP:AUTHOR that defines what constitutes a "trivial mention." What's being established is that Zalewski is mentioned and referenced many times by many other authors and publications. If all that could be found is one or two mentions, I might agree with you. But the search for his name (in quotes) on Google Books pulls up 1,650 hits. Let's assume that 90% of them are bogus or obscure. That leaves 165 real refs and citations going back to the 1970s. I believe this is strong evidence of notability in this particular field of Golden Dawn ceremonial magic. Israel Regardie, the other main exponent of the modern Golden Dawn movement, has a WP author page that no one challenges for deletion, and actually has a smaller body of work (most by the same publisher as Zalewski.) JMax555 (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, thank you Msnicki for debating the actual content and notability instead of impugning the other editors and hinting at sock puppetry. JMax555 (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the size of the body his work that matters, or even, since notability isn't WP:INHERITED, whether others have taken note of his work, it's whether they've taken note of the individual himself. I don't think you've got enough here to establish his books as notable, much less him as notable. Also, WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid. Israel Regardie, otoh, does appear to be satisfy WP:Notability (people). Though our article doesn't cite it, I had no problem finding a whole book about him, Crowley's Apprentice: The Life and Ideas of Israel Regardie. Msnicki (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on the author's body of work AND the secondary source citations offered by 'james', I vote for keeping the article. Pat Zalewski is a noted researcher in this field and has a substantial body of work and lots of references can be found. For example he is also referenced in
  1. King over the Water (Nick Farrell), Reference, Golden Dawn Rituals and Commentaries
  2. King over the Water (Nick Farrell), Reference, Talismans and Evocations of the Golden Dawn
  3. King over the Water (Nick Farrell), Reference, Inner Order Teachings of the Golden Dawn Magus007
Same request for you, too. Since these are not available online, could you please identify the publisher and provide quotations from these sources so we know more clearly what they have to say about the subject? Msnicki (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found these, since I own the book:

King over the Water (Nick Farrell), Kerubim Press (February 29, 2012) ISBN-13: 978-1908705013

  1. Ref, p3 and p159 Golden Dawn Rituals and Commentaries
  2. Ref, p68, Talismans and Evocations of the Golden Dawn
  3. Ref, p 298 Inner Order Teachings of the Golden Dawn

JMax555 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would like to point out, with out going to SPI, that User:Kheph777, User:JMax555, and User:^^James^^ all came out of editing retirement since 2012 to singularly !vote keep on this AfD on the same day. Kheph777 and JMax555 both use triple repeating digits and despite Kheph777's very small number of edits, has contributed to two similar pages as JMax555. Mkdwtalk 05:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The additional information I provided was accurate and relevant, and you apparently were not aware of it. That's me being helpful. Ideally when new information is presented opinions change accordingly. ^^James^^ (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kheph777 and JMax555 are two different people and the reason that they contribute to similar pages might be because they are experts in this particular field, and discovered that the page was up for deletion. I monitor a couple of pages and if there are no changes on them I have nothing to say. Magus007
"Discovered"? Something of a coincidence! Could this come under 'Off-wiki canvassing' (if that is relevant)? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An editor being notified that an article of interest is nominated for deletion doesn't violate any WP policy, so long as there is no sock-puppetry involved. Let's discuss the merits of the article and not the editors, and please try to Assume Good Faith. Thanks. JMax555 (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
actually WP:CANVASS covers the issue at hand. sock-puppetry also covers meat-puppetry which is other people acting on behalf of one individual, while AGF is a primary principle where there are strong indicators of either in deletion discussions noting such is also acceptible. Gnangarra 23:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria. See my comment above for a more detailed explanation. Papaursa (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this as an open-and-shut case of failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK and WP:GNG, with no WP:RS to make this person notable as anything. And furthermore, I would like to point out to the closing admin, as well as to the entire community, that the meat-puppetry violations of WP:CANVASS that have gone on during this AfD are a hideous stain on the integrity of Wikipedia's policies and processes. For that reason, the cynically manipulative comments and keep votes of the meat puppets in this discussion should be entirely ignored. Qworty (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while Zalewski is mentioned a handful of times in bibliographies and the like, there is no substantial third-party coverage on the person themselves. I do not believe he meets WP:BIO at this time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pat_Zalewski_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138207716"