Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber (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 delete. Finding reliable sources was a concern that wasn't met in the AFD. Being an author doesn't indicate instant notabilty.Secret ^account 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip H. Farber[edit]

This nom is a little complex. Previously AfDed in Aug 2006, it was closed as "delete" against a numerical majority of opinions/!votes. It went to DRV which overturned the closing admin and it went back for a second, procedural AfD which it overwhelmingly passed as "keep". I'd note, though, that at least four of the editors participating in the discussions (and in favor of keeping the article) were found to be socks of the same person: User:999, User:Hanuman Das, User:Ekajati and User:Gurunath. I'm bringing it back to AfD because I still can't see the notability in this bio. Of the two published books, one is on Xlibris so is essentially self-published. The level of his participation in Chronicle of the 20th Century and Chronicle of America, two New York Times bestsellers apparently, is difficult to track down. He's certainly not one of the main named editors as far as I can find without actually having the books in hand. I suspect the number of contributing writers and/or editors in such books may be quite large and I'm finding it difficult to attribute too much weight to this without better documentation. Professional recognition/achievement (as a hypnotist) seems negligible. In over 30 years, he seems to have produced a couple of handfuls of articles and interviews for magazines. I can't tell whether the DVD sets are significant. I could find little WP:V or WP:RS info besides various online bios and a single Disinformation interview. If participants here can find enough substantial info to add to the article, I'll withdraw the nom. Pigman☿ 22:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD wasn't listed properly, it's fixed now. KTC (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references for any notability, except self-published material by the neurolinguistic community and the like.DGG (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You didn't look hard enough. Search for "Phil Farber", "Philip Farber", as well as "Philip H. Farber". "Meta-Magick" is another good search term. I'll add some new material. Foolio93 —Preceding comment was added at 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually I did do searches on the variations of his name you suggested above before AfDing the article. Perhaps I wasn't diligent enough in going through the results. As to a "Meta-Magick" search, I had no idea that would be a term specific to him. A Google news search on "Meta-Magick" comes up with only a PR release. A wider Google search on "Meta-Magick" + Farber comes up with 3200 hits but the first 100 hits don't seem to include anything meeting WP:V/WP:RS that I can see. Pigman☿ 02:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I ran the same search on google proper and turned up two recent interviews, plus a new book on a major publisher available at major retailers within the first 100 hits. Amazon.com was the third hit. I've added info from these to the article. Seems to me that a mass marketed book on a respected publisher with an introduction by D. Rushkoff = notable, to say the least. I can only image you have a different google than I do... I see several articles that cite Farber as a source and discuss his work and even some biographical material. I will add these as I get time. I'm also wondering if you contacted authors and previous AfD participants - as I was one and received no contact from you. Foolio93 —Preceding comment was added at 17:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops Comment Er, no, apparently I didn't notify anyone from the previous AfD. I completely blanked on that and I apologize. Please do add what new info you find to his article. I'd like to see what it is. Perhaps I am being too strict in my interpretation of WP:V/WP:RS. Pigman☿ 04:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously. Sources had indicated then, and do now, that this is at least a semi notable individual through BIO. You guys can meat it out if you want, but I disagreed with the original AfD deletion, and I will now. I really don't care about the guy, but third party sources are enough to keep the article on wikipedia. Oh and thanks for dropping me the line. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must have been having a stupid day because it didn't even cross my mind to notify anyone from the previous AfD. Really, no underhanded malice or subterfuge intended, just ordinary dumbness. Thanks for adding your opinion. Pigman☿ 08:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, we read in the article that Farber "writes a regular column, Hypnosis and Meditation in The Journal of Hypnosis". The Library of Congress does not carry this journal; a total of zero libraries participating in COPAC carry it: all in all it hardly seems typical of periodicals titled Journal of [XYZ]. Secondly, DGG writes above that there are "No references for any notability, except self-published material by the neurolinguistic community and the like." I suspect that DGG was typing quickly and that he'd concur that this "community" has nothing to do with neurolinguistics (a scientific endeavor); it instead is about so-called "neuro-linguistic programming". ¶ A "Disinfo" article listed as a source explains that Phil Farber is a postmodern magician who conceived the future of initiatory ritual. Part of a revolutionary cabal that includes Robert Anton Wilson, Genesis P-Orridge, Laurence Galian, Peter J, Carroll, Phil Hine, and Antero Alli, Farber has updated Aleister Crowley's definition of magic ("the art and science of causing change in conformity with Will") for the contemporary environment. His unique and humorous synthesis enables the individual to manifest hidden desires, discover their True Will, and experience Mastery of the Self. Now, we mustn't begrudge Crowley his article: after all: his excesses have always made good copoy. But Farber seems unremarkable: his notability does indeed seem limited to a little fraternity of "magick", etc. -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment So, while quoting a source that asserts Farber's notability, your point seems to be that you don't like magick or NLP, both of which are subjects certainly notable enough for many wiki entries and persons involved in these - many LESS notable than Farber. The Journal of Hypnotism appears to be the professional in-house journal of the National Guild of Hypnotists and has been published for over 50 years. http://www.nghinfo.com/aboutus.shtml Foolio93 (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Farber does to be of some note within the field he works in, he is frequently appearing on the alternative lecture circuit a guest speaker at Hypnoticon, one of those interviewed for the forthcoming film Programming the Nation?. This all points to a person of some note. Lack of Libaray of Congress data does not sway me. The alternative press has always worked in a different world to main stream/academic world and Idon't think we should judge one by the other. --Salix alba (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's twelfth on IMDB's list of people appearing in this film (which doesn't actually exist yet). -- Hoary (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment List 12th of 24. And 3rd under "experts" on the film's own site. So what? Foolio93 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I'm pretty much of the opinion that anyone who has a number of books listed for sale on Amazon [1] is notable enough to merit inclusion in our Encyclopedia. -- Atlant (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So for example anybody who churns out some vanity books and gets ISBNs for them and has them listed at Amazon is thereby worth inclusion? Well well. Actually Farber seems to have three books listed. One's out of print, one doesn't exist yet, and there's one novel. -- Hoary (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The out of print book fetches over $150 on alibris and other used books sites - apparently some people think it is notable. The one that is forthcoming is on a major publisher, with an introduction by a notable author and also turns up on sites for major retailers including Target, Best Buy and others - apparently a notable book. Foolio93 (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is all vanity. He's a minor figure on a niche lecture circuit. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete First, I can't find any meaningful assertion of notability in the article to begin with. Second, none of the cites seem to be reliable sources (which need not be listed in the US LoC). Hence, the article reads to me like an advertisement for someone's small magic business. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --rogerd (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Author of multiple books and articles. To me that's an obvious one. Wjhonson (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Another worthless piece of self-promoting vanity press garbage acting like the weed it is, cluttering up Wikipedia, devaluing all of the good healthy articles out there in the garden, and slowly choking the life out of this place. Ok. That was the cathartic rant. This is the real reason:

Results for Philip H. Farber:

Google News (all dates): two press releases, no independent reliable third-party sources.

LexisNexis (major mentions): 1 article, which might be a false positive. 2 sentences are devoted to what a "Philip H. Farber" thinks of a funk resurgence CD (Deep Banana Blackout) in the Florida-Times Union (December 2001).

LexisNexis (3 or more mentions): zero articles.

LexisNexis (at the start): zero articles.

LexisNexis (anywhere): 2 articles. The previously mentioned article is one; this article in the Dallas Observer (Texas) is the other. I'll quote the relevant section.

This should tell you all you need to know about Philip H. Farber, author of FUTURERITUAL: Magick for the 21st Century: Several of his articles have appeared in High Times. While we know it isn't fair to judge someone because they've written for a monthly magazine dedicated to marijuana and all the fun things you can do while high on it, in this case it seems appropriate. Farber's book reads like a list of deep thoughts he had while stoned, incorporating ancient esoteric traditions and modern science into his flippant rhetoric. Mixed in is a bit of new-age nonsense, a holdover from Farber's days as a hypnotherapist. The book is humorous at times, but if you take any of it seriously, you must be higher than he was when he wrote it. Farber will discuss and sign copies of FUTURERITUAL: Magick for the 21st Century on Saturday at 3 p.m. at Forbidden Books, 835 Exposition. Free food and beverages will be provided. Call (214) 821-9554

Well said....next up is Factiva.

Factiva (all dates, English): 1 article. The same one on the CD in the Florida-Times Union. Unbelievable.

Factiva (all dates, all languages): The same article and that's it. Amazing.

JSTOR: zero hits. No surprise there. Farber isn't an academic.

Google Books: 4 hits, 2 of which are books he wrote. The third book is entitled Book of Lies: The Disinformation Guide to Magick and the Occult and lists Farber's FutureRitual in one of the selected bibliographies. That's hardly something that can be quoted or used in this article, but doesn't actually support notability too much either. The fourth book simply lists the address for a "Philip H. Farber" so it could very well be another false positive.

WorldCat: 3 hits. Now, this is where it gets VERY interesting. 2 hits are for Farber's books, FutureRitual and Meta-Magik. WorldCat is a consortium of over 15,000 libraries worldwide, so it also tells you which libraries stock these books. Interestingly enough, only 14 libraries worldwide apparently carry FutureRitual and only 3 libraries worldwide carry Meta-Magik. I think we can infer from this fact that even the libraries in the WorldCat consortium don't think it necessary to carry his books. As for the third book, it's Psychedelics reimagined and without looking inside the book I can't determine if that's a false positive.

The bottom-line is that there's very little reliable third-party sources to support notability. It's amazing that this article has survived for so long. Again, my vote: strong delete. J Readings (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse J Readings' take on this article. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2008 (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.