Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison

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 merge and redirect to Ar nDraiocht Fein. Subject of article fails WP:BIO tests. The material for merging is in the redirect page history. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison

Notability is not established. A few self-published books and a senior position in some Wiccan sect do not mean notability. No references other than from his sect Alex Bakharev 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the subject is well-known enough to be the #1 requested article at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Neopaganism#Requested articles Frater Xyzzy 23:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The ordering of requested articles at WikiProject Neopaganism is completely arbitrary and depends only on where someone stuck it on the page. The fact that one Wikipedian requested the article does not make him "well-known". - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 01:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doing some Google and book searching turned up little beyond the fact that one book had been published. Barely nudges my personal Wikipedia Notability Meter™. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Xyzzy. —Hanuman Das 01:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Ar nDraiocht Fein. - WeniWidiWiki 01:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 2 non-self-published books, 2 more self-published, Archdruid of ADF, liturgist, lecturer, faculty member of Grey School, runs a Druidic center for a Grove with regular holiday ceremonies and other events. Notable. Rosencomet 18:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note Rosencomet is the creator of article, and who re-created this article after last deletion. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Note on Note So? It says that right in the history. Rosencomet 18:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Note³ The point, I think, is that the article has already been deleted once, a factor to consider in the current process. This is, of course, a separate consideration, but I know I like to know these things when evaluating an article. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 20:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - While probably notable in the small pond of Neo-druid groups, I don't think this article makes a case for notabilty in terms of a general encyclopedia. Isaac, for instance, as the *founder* of ADF *and* someone who has had a long-term, marked influence on the Neopagan community - in addition to authoring a number of books and being cited by numerous Neopagan and mainstream authors - has verifiable notability. However, there have been a number of other ADF leaders over the years. This article lacks *any* third-party sourcing. Without that verifiability, I really don't think the article as it now stands is up to WP:BIO standards. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not paper. We've got projects out there to include all topics covered in other encyclopedias. He is covered in The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism, on page 89. If you have signed up for a Google Books account, you can see the article there. GRBerry 04:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reference. I've added it. Rosencomet 18:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep His position as head of ADF qualifies, IMO, as sufficiently notable. If people don't feel he's sufficiently notable, I'd prefer WeniWidiWiki's "merge" to a "delete." Septegram 18:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think merge is more the way to go as well. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support a merge. However, what is kept and added to the ADF article will still need third-party sourcing. What I am concerned with in many of these Neopagan articles is not whether we know and like the people mentioned, but whether the information in the article can be sourced at a level that meets WP standards for inclusion. All the best, --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • p.s. - It does look like the above-linked book can be used as a source for some of the content. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:32, 14 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.