Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Hine

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 per WP:SNOW. This was a procedural nom and no valid deletion rational has been given at this point and the subject meets WP:BIO. As the person who brought the procedural nom I am withdrawing it.--Isotope23 14:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Phil Hine

This ariticle has undergone an incomplete AfD, PROD, PROD removal, and re-PROD; all without the editors commenting on this. I'm bringing this to AfD so this can go through an actual community review. The original PROD reason was "notability", which I assume is supposed to mean the PROD'er finds this person non-notable. The article is completely unverified, but I'm not convinced it is unverifiable and the subject may meet WP:BIO. Regardless, I have no real opinion here, this is just procedural so an actual consensus can hopefully be reached.--Isotope23 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - Original bad faith nom (I brought it to the admins' attention before, and they said they would deal with it[1]), and the prodder has been repeatedly warned for vandalism[2]. Add to that the fact that Phil Hine's book, Condensed Chaos, is about the most recommended book on chaos magic to beginners, I'd say he's notable. --Tsuzuki26 21:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - bad faith nom by vandal. Hine is extremely notable in the field of Chaos Magick as well as AMOOKOS. -999 (Talk) 21:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, definately notable. Cannot see that any WP policies have been breached. As noted on other AfDs, the nominator has nominated a relatively high number of similar articles. Mallanox 22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I take exception to being called a vandal for an edit made in good faith. Phil Hine, although an author of the occult, does not satisfy notability, as per. When SUZUKI says, "one of the most commended books fo beginners..." who exactly is doing the referring?

  Notability criteria do not equate to "I have heard of it"/"I have never heard of it" or "I think this topic deserves attention"/"I do not think this topic is worthy of attention". These subjective evaluations are irrelevant to the notability of a topic regarding its inclusion in the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.142.172 (talk • contribs)

• Delete Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. With respect to notability, the inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, and journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. As such, the primary notability criterion does allow Wikipedia editors to determine whether "the world" has judged a subject to be notable, but this is not a consideration of whether a Wikipedian personally thinks a subject is or is not notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.142.172 (talk • contribs) — 71.219.142.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep,I suspect this is from the same person that nominated quite a few other rather notable people in the field, such as Peter Carroll, as well. If so, this may perhaps be a clear WP:POINT and the user ought to be warned as such. I'm going to assume good faith on the part of the nomination, however and defend as such. Hine is well-known in occultist circles, published for at least two books by reputable publishers, and his books are located in print bookshops in addition to online ones. While that may not be a direct qualification, I think that it can be a useful adjunct to the bio policy in that if Barnes and Nobel thinks he warrents shelf-space he's probably at least notable enough. His books are also the subject of review in websites and in print. The article cites sources, and deals with an author of verifiable notability. While notability is not just in the eyes of wikipedia editors, it is also not simply in the hands of the mainstream. The fact that his writing is important only to a subculture is not an impeachment of his notability. Chaos Magic is a notable new religious/philosophical movement, and as a major writer of the field, Hine is as well. Wintermut3 23:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as others have said, Phil's work is seminal in chaos magic, which apparently the nominator doesn't believe in. I don't believe in Chrsitianity, but I don't go nominating Christian articles for deletion. Looking at the noms contribs, this is a clear violation of WP:POINT as has already been suggested. —Hanuman Das 01:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above, no need to further this WP:POINT any more. RFerreira 02:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This was nominated by 71.219.142.172 who obviously has a problem with Chaos magicians as he has nominated Jan Fries, Ian Read, Phil Hine, etc. WITHOUT REGISTERING! FK0071a 09:51, 1 December 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.