Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew D. Chumbley

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. Majorly (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew D. Chumbley

Andrew D. Chumbley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability disputed, see Talk:Andrew_D._Chumbley#Notability Denial 06:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing admin, please note that the nominator has effectively withdrawn his nomination by changing his vote to keep. The majority of delete votes are now from ip addresses. IPSOS (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I've read through the article, and discussion that OP linked. While I understand the OP concern about the depth of the references, it is possible to pass WP:N with trivial or marginal depth in individual articles provided there is a significant quantity of them. Article's subject has enough low grade mentions in what op agreed is a peer-reviewed journal to pass this standard in my opinion. Argument about price of his books in resale market doesn't appear to be an exaggeration. (>$1000 for Qutub on ABE). This is indicative of someone whose notability may be lasting. Looking at past notable occultists, his volume of published work seems reasonable. He passes notability now, albeit barely, based on journal coverage and it appears his work will have a lasting impact in his field. Horrorshowj 08:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I did agree the journal noted is per-reviewed, but I did not agree it passes for an academic journal. (I'm undecided on that.) Peer review alone is not enough for academic laurels. And Qutub has been offered for >$1000 alright, but has it been bought? With the apparent availability of copies (Google!), I very much doubt that. - Denial 19:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment And the cheapest copy of Azoetia listed on Amazon is $2000. None of his books are listed on ebay at the moment, but from this forum discussion it seems his Grimoire of the Golden Toad has fetched upwards of $2000 on ebay... In 2005 the Azoetia was definitely going for over $1000 on ebay [1] which from memory was pretty similar to the amazon used bookseller prices at the time. Market prices have risen since then, yes, but that's only because people have been buying. That's how the market sets its prices! Fuzzypeg☻ 22:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Denial: Don't you know whether it has been bought for that price? I don't understand why you believe that you can make a reasoned argument without knowing your facts. Ben Ferneee of Caduceus Books has sold Qutub for over $1000 for several years now. He has offered The Grimoire of the Golden Toad for $5000 (both in Pounds Sterling, not American dollars) in the past year and it sold within hours. Write him. He'll reply. If the price books fetch in the collector market is an indication of notability, I'd say $5000 a book is notable. Lulubyrd 23:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I've added a reference for the exponential increase in the value of Chumbley's work as well as a number of other details based on the same reference, which quotes Chumbley extensively on the "Left Hand Path". IPSOS (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as I find sufficient indicia of notability in the talkpage discussions, and per some of Horrorshowj's points. Further editing of the article is in order, but that is not a deletion criterion. Newyorkbrad 12:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and merge from the company, above, per Newyorkbrad. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete:Some of the editors might not know that the supposed references are not not legit. What has happened in this article is closer to a hagiography.SecondlyThe editors of the Chumbley article have taken the work of other people out of context to create an impression of Chumbley that sits ill with reality. An example of this is the editors stating Chumbleys occupation has a Magican. Can someone explain to me how someones occupation can be a magician? That will be interesting. Another point is that the present editors have an agenda in creating a profile for Chumbley that is out of proportion to his actual work . The references used to make Chumbley "appear" to be a "influential" occultist all come from articles by people who were not in a position to say how competent Chumbley was in his writing, and his ideas. Also the issue over using references from Hutton are dubious. Chumbley went out of his way to make a name for himself by courting hutton to be included in his papers. In this context Chumbley was sellling himself to Hutton.Hutton is a Historian. He is not a position to pass comment on whether Chumbley was a legitimate occultist.Also the references using Michael Howard are dishonest. Howard was a "student" of Chumbley and used his Cauldron fanzine to give a biased platform for Chumbley. To me this is nothing more than a hagiography in that context. A fair percentage of the references are very poor which dont back up the notability view. In the occult scene for notability to be accepted it has to been shown his work has been of original composition and have a genuine link to a spiritual link. Chumbley had neither. His work was plagiarism at best and vanity projects at worst. To put this in context look at the lack of material for the Kenneth Grant wiki article. Grant has been the major influence in Occultism for the last 30- 40 years. But yet his article is thread bare. In this context the Chumbley article is probably been edited by "students " of Chumbley who are seeking to make Chumbley something he is not, an occultist of notability. An example is the earlier mentioned use of the term magician. I put forward the motion that the article be deleted so that it can be started again with different editors from scratch, who wont turn the article into a shrine and advertisement for Chumbley. Compare the article to other notable occultist articles ( Gardner , Grant, Crowley etc.) and you will see the differnce in tone and accountability. If this article is kept in its present form then wikipedia editorial will be seen is inadequate and lightweight. Has far has i know historical revisionism isnt accepted in accounts of dead people. Why should Wikipedia accept this for the Chumbley article. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.126.158 (talk • contribs) — 86.139.126.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Problems with tone of the article are grounds for cleanup not deletion. Your first argument seems to be a belief that subject was an incompetent occultist, however being good at something isn't required to meet notability. You appear to personally dislike the articles subject, which again isn't a valid reason for deletion. Cauldron articles weren't used to assign notability, as they were written by the subject. I agree that the article needs cleanup, but do you have an actual policy based argument for deletion? Establishing lack of "genuine link to a spiritual link" is a little hard by wp standards.Horrorshowj 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: for about a year now this anonymous editor has been making fairly colourful statements about how much he despises Chumbley and how childish the other editors are, from a variety of IP addresses (occasionally he logs in as User:Redblossom). His above comments you will find repeated ad nauseam through the talk page history along with my repeated, failed attempts to engage him in meaningful conversation and find out what on earth he's on about... Fuzzypeg☻ 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• keep if you consider it hagiographical, NPOV it, don't delete. This is/was a very well known occultist. As to his career as a 'magickian' what is meant is that he engaged in magical pursuits himself, then as a writer, wrote them up in the form of books and articles.Merkinsmum 20:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As to it having to be proven that Chumbley had a 'spiritual link', that is impossible to prove or disprove as all spiritual things are, except to a believer. What matters is he wrote books, stuff was written about his work, he appeared as a speaker, and others were inspired by him and have written that they have been.Merkinsmum 20:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh at the 'anon ip' editor, I'm just reading the comment some more. If he dislikes the tone of the article he can change it immediately, it doesn't have to be deleted. Does whoever-it-is not realise that the same group of editors plus others who find there way there, will edit the article if it's restarted?Merkinsmum 20:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Per WP:N and WP:V. Regarding the IP editor, he/she seems to have strong feelings on the matter but the comments don't seem based in Wikipedia policy. --Parsifal _Hello 03:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've re-edited my comment to change "keep" to "strong keep" after seeing the additional references and other improvements to the article that were done during this AfD debate. It's now even more clear that this is a notable person supported by verifiable sources. For context on my comment, I have not edited the article or seen it before this AfD. --Parsifal _Hello 17:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I have given my reasoning regarding Chumbley's notability at the article's talk page. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I see no real evidence that the sources are reliable, though I admit the difficulty of sourcing in this area. We are expected to believe he was well-known on the testimony of his associates. DGG (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral - as I've contributed to the article I think that's the only fair position.

I'll point out that in reponse to POV criticisms from Redblossom (and his other identities) I have repeatedly suggested that he make changes to the article as he sees fit, which can then be discussed if needful; I have also offered to make the changes myself in according with his direction, sentence by sentence, even word by word! No changes or complaints specific to the text have been forthcoming, only criticisms in the most general terms. As exemplified by the anonymous posting above.

Following on from Merkinsmum's comment above: if the article is deleted and then started up again, I won't be taking a lead on it! Just confirming that - in answer to some unjustified allegations about my NPOV. Possesion of specialist knowledge about, and enthusiasm for, the subject does not make me or anyone else by default a student/disciple/follower/hagiographer. Thanks all! reineke 12:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the claim that'students' of Chumbley are in charge of the article- just because people may have heard of chumbley or even like to read his works, doesn't make them 'students' of his pushing a POV article. In actuality he took on very few personal students- (so it's unlikely many have contributed here), but a lot of people in occult circles have heard of him and his work.Merkinsmum 16:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral - I should follow Reineke's lead regarding a vote, since I, too, have contributed to the article. I challenge anyone to find the depth of material referencing this man and his work anywhere else, internet or print.

Voters here will want to read the talk pages before voting, including the archived discussions, where they will find more extensive reference material and get a feel for the rigour applied to referencing the article, the rigour the person calling for deletion is imposing upon editors and references, as well as the contributions of the "unsigned" person above. This has all been hashed out on the Talk page with those calling for deletion refusing to negotiate or contribute anything to the article or back up their complaints with a single opposing reference, and imposing POV on the veracity of references made by editors. I have always found the POV/NPOV charges made about the article kind of strange, since editors have simply placed everything we can get our hands on in the article. If we could find something-anything negative from a reliable source, it would be placed in the article for balance.

Commentators here might be warned that the anonymous person who has called for deletion above has deleted the article twice in the past month, has graffiti'ed the article, has badgered editors, has manipulated references to appear other than they are in order to further his agenda, and has posted under numerous sock puppets and IP addresses. This may all be seen on the talk page and article history page. Lulubyrd 14:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I fail to see how past vandalism is in any way relevant to this discussion. Denial 19:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You have missed the point and substance of the reference, Denial. Unfortunately, that seems to be a reoccurring theme on the Chumbley Talk page-my point exactly. Perhaps you have something to add except commentary on how you believe my contribution is lacking? Lulubyrd 20:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Vandalism, POV, sock-puppetry etc. are not relevant to this discussion, and I would note that I saw no evidence that Denial was guilty of any manipulation, sock-puppetry, badgering etc.. He just doesn't consider Chumbley notable. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If you will please read more carefully, you will see that I was not talking about the poster signing as Denial when posting about sock puppets, et al. The past actions of the commentator above voting for denial have been brought up by other voters here, including you. I fail to see why some actions may point to the veracity of claims and comments and others may not. Even you noted the badgering, etc., though you called it something else. Lulubyrd 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Lulubyrd 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - highly notable in his field. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Reineke, whenever i have made changes to the article either Lulubyrd or someone else has undone them. Secondly when i challenged over the term magician has an occupation you were all resistant to its removal. Explain how that is neutral? The term magician is not an occupation. Did he make money from his "magic" to qualify it has a career /occupation? I would have to say no. The term occultist would have been more suitable. But the fact that the mind set of the editors seems to think its normal to label a deceased persons job has a magician speaks volumes about the surreal nature of this article.Also the fact the article is still insisting that he was the head of 'Sorcery Guild' "The Company of the Serpent Cross" even though there is no evidence that this order actually existed outside Chumbleys head. Just surreal. On a separate level there is no point accusing me for other peoples gripes with the article. This has happened consistently when between you , Lulubyrd, and Reineke, have all portrayed me has this "Bongo " character, attempting to deflect from the very poor standard of editing of the article. So in that context i agree with the other critics that the article should be scrubbed and given over to the hands of someone neutral who doesnt have an axe to grind or an agenda, so that a grounded article can be begun from scratch. Whatever the intention of the article was , has been lost in personal inadequacies and agendas presented has academic fact. I put forward that the article has a minor deletion and be put in the hands of a neutral editor who will use the remaining references in a matter of fact fashion to give a more honest account of Chumbleys career. If any Wiki editor asks why , then look at the history of the misnomers and fabrications put forward has academic "fact" in the articles history. --Redblossom 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Redblossom, the proposed reason for deletion is that Chumbley is not notable; that is all we're trying to decide, and the discussion doesn't extend to editorial disagreements about the article. Take those on the article's talk page. I know you have long held that Chumbley is not a "real occultist" and is only notable for his publishing, if that. This is your opportunity to present your arguments regarding his notability. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy to talk with you on the article's discussion page, Red; see you over there. reineke 08:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The content is noteworthy, the article is encyclopaedic and there is no violation of any WP recommendations. It does need to be improved in some respects, but so do most articles. I found it interesting, informative and worthy of inclusion. docboat 02:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep per IPSOS and docboat. GlassFET 15:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the concerns about the notability of the subject of this article are justified. The slightly bizarre character of the entry seems to argue for something of a compensatory bias on the part of a small number of contributors pushing a certain agenda. The article was problematic, if well-intentioned, from the start and needs to be given some serious consideration (not a 'vote' which would be meaningless)and serious deliberation from Wiki arbitrators. As many people clearly regard the original article as lacking in credibility I think it should be deleted and a simpler and more sober entry written from scratch from a more objective angle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.165 (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• comment

http://www.arin.net/whois/

Search results for: 195.92.168.165  (2nd anon. contributor)

OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre

OrgID: RIPE Address: P.O. Box 10096 City: Amsterdam StateProv: PostalCode: 1001EB Country: NL

 Search results for: 86.139.126.158 (1st anon. contributor)

   OrgName:    RIPE Network Coordination Centre 
   OrgID:      RIPE
   Address:    P.O. Box 10096
   City:       Amsterdam
   StateProv:  
   PostalCode: 1001EB
   Country:    NL

Enough said I think!:)Merkinsmum 20:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion is not going anywhere. Dear co-editors who happen do defend this article, you are wasting time on highly circumstancial evidence such as the supposed price of books (a criterium since when?), unsourced claims of notability, and ad hominem attacks. You fail to discuss the guidelines or bring in new evidence that mets them. I tire of this mode of discussion since it is inconsequential to the result. Wikipedia is not a democracy and this discussion is not a vote. The guidelines are what matters and this article doesn't meet them. Nothing said in this discussion has changed that. - Denial 20:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• The discussion is very definitely going somewhere. It is polarising into two groups: you and the User:Redblossom puppeteer on one side, with weak support from User:DGG, and everyone else on the other, including a number of editors who are familiar with both WP policy and the occult community. Many of the "keep" comments have included discussion about notability guidelines and why Chumbley meets them; if you don't choose to engage with any of this discussion and consider it "inconsequential" then perhaps you'd prefer setting up an improved encyclopedia that doesn't involve that stupid concept of collaboration. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As a completely disinterested outsider, I see here nothing but a clear consensus to Keep, based on numerous uninvolved editor's appraisal of what we all will admit is a "judgment call". User: Denial was extraordinarily civil in the initial discussions of notability on the article's talk page, but I detect here a change towards a less civil tone. You're right, Denial, this discussion is not a vote: it's a call for editors to offer their opinion on a subjective issue. And that opinion is clearly the opposite of your own. Welcome to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Eaglizard 01:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Does that make it a democracy then? Yay! :D reineke 08:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Coment Um, I'm confused. I'm new to AfD-not a Wikipedian/editor, just an occultist with an interest in the subject. You may see that this subject is the only one to which I've contributed. This is not a vote? This is inconsequential to the result? Please explain; on the Talk page if this is an inappropriate venue. Lulubyrd 11:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lulubyrd, what it essentially means is that the administrator who closes this discussion could ignore the numbers of people behind one of the positions, saying that the arguments used are not 'proper.' That is what Denial said in his most recent comment, that those of us who are arguing to keep the article "you are wasting time on highly circumstancial evidence such as the supposed price of books (a criterium since when?), unsourced claims of notability" etc. He has a point in a way, really ideally we should be discussing the various sources and linking to them here for the benefit of editors who land on this discussion. As it is, sad to say we are not really proving that Chumbley is noteable just by saying 'yes he is' 'I've heard of him' 'he's well-known, influential' 'keep' and we're not providing any sources on this AfD page, to back it up. It makes me as someone who has voted keep, worry that he's not actually noteable, which would be sad. I'm going to put the sources there are in the article, here so we can all see/assess them, at least then there are some mentioned here in depth.Merkinsmum 13:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• comment To save cluttering up this page more I've started another section at the bottom of the talk page of chumbleys article, Talk:Andrew_D._Chumbley called 'the sources'. I know there's already one on 'notabiliity' but I don't think it writes out some of the sources for them to be seen clearly- this is easy to do for some of them.Merkinsmum 14:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• comment Thank you for your kind reply, Merkinsum. The sources have been gone over on the Chumbley page, ad nauseam. The references on Chumbley's page aren't really what Denial appears to be questioning. Denial appears to be questioning the legitimacy of the journals in which Chumbley is mentioned and where he has published, and the notability of who is mentioning Chumbley. Denial has dismissed The Cauldron as an occult 'zine, when in fact it has been continuously published for over 30 years, and is published in several languages and on two continents. He has dismissed Chaos International magazine as a thin pamphlet of sorts published once a year when in fact it was published about 4 times a year under Reed’s steerage in the 90’s when Chumbley published there. Those issues were a big deal then and still are now. In the past week I have seen CI issues in which Chumbley articles offered for sale for L25 Sterling-a price increase over issues offered without Chumbley articles. He dismissed The Journal for the Academic Study of Magic, a juried occult journal with submissions from all over the world, as a student publication like many others on the basis of a cursory internet search, then was not able to reference his material at all. Though he claims to have read the journals, he is unable to describe their format. He dismisses Xoanon publishing, a thriving ongoing publishing concern started by Chumbley which has just added a new publishing initiative, as a vanity press. According to Denial, Hutton all but dismissed Chumbley and he infers that Chumbley went to Hutton with hat in hand instead of characterizing Hutton as the researcher he is who approached Chumbley. This assertion pretty much disrespects Hutton and his accomplishments more than Chumbley, though. Denial dismisses reviewers of Chumbley’s writing as non-notable people.

Denial has refused to provide any references to back up any of his charges of non-notability while demanding others provide references of notability in response to his charges. I also note some similarities in writing and posting style between Denial and other article detractors. I note a similar style of attempts to change the subject when pressed for details and similar word choices. Lulubyrd 16:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. So if Chumbley isn't notable for Wikipedia-no big deal. I suggest that removal would be a much bigger loss to Wikipedia than to Chumbley. Lulubyrd 16:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just curious- how could someone prove/provide references for non-notability? (i.e. the references wouldn't say anything!) :) He does have a point the burden rests on us to find sources asserting notability, rather than the other way round.Merkinsmum 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hey ho, Merkinsmum: I was considering the possibility that Denial might make a real case for non-notability by providing references that show that those who laud Chumbley are non-notable themselves and the journals in which Chumbley published and in which he has been mentioned are non-notable. The idea of proving non-notability would then rest on references backing up his charges of why Chumbley is non-notable. An example might be that he would produce a reference that states that Chaos International was a once yearly pamphlet as he charges, or provide a reference that shows that there are indeed "many" (several, any?) student publications that rival the depth and scope of JSM as he has claimed, or that The Cauldron is not an internationally published magazine but instead a trivial occult 'zine, or that he has, indeed, created a 150+ member talk group for discussion of just one of his published books. (By the way, I understand it's very difficult to even get in to that discussion group). Lulubyrd 03:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, the disagreement so far has rested on two points: 1) whether the sources we're citing for Chumbley's notability are themselves non-trivial, notable and intellectually independent; and 2) whether Chumbley's own published writings have been published in a way that makes them notable. Regarding triviality, WP:BIO states:

Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not.

I think the only "trivial" reference to Chumbley in the article is the Phil Hine "Oven Ready Chaos" reference. All others discuss his work and/or his character and express analysis or opinion. Regarding notability of the sources who discuss Chumbley, we have several sources who are highly notable in their field, such as Ronald Hutton, Michael Howard, Jan Fries, Phil Hine, as well as other, less stellar, but still influential and well-informed figures, such as Michael Staley.

Regarding intellectual independence, I would argue that each of these people, although they had probably had contact with Chumbley (Howard certainly did), have written about him with intellectual independence. Remember this is the occult community, a community of highly independent and self-directed people. Michael Howard is probably the most arguable case of intellectual dependence, since he and Chumbley were colleagues, but Howard himself is a scholar and historian and editor of the leading Witchcraft journal in the world, and if he says Chumbley was an important occultist, then it's not because Chumbley was leaning on him to say that (especially considering Chumbley was dead!); it's because he genuinely believes it. And I can't think of many people better placed to make that judgement. Can we really discount the opinions of some of the most notable figures in contemporary British occultism just because Chumbley knew them? Doesn't that make him seem more notable, not less?

Regarding the notability of Chumbley's own writing, he was published numerous times in the leading journals of his field. If you dismiss The Cauldron as an "occult zine" you're effectively denying the validity of one of the occult community's most respected mouthpieces. Hutton considered The Cauldron an effective way to address the pagan community, for instance, as I pointed out in the article's talk page. And what other sources do we have for info on the occult community? Llewellyn books with their RavenWolf-Grimassis? Bleerch.

Now even if the above points weren't enough to convince us, WP:BIO offers some other ways to establish notability:

"The person has demonstrable wide name recognition": This was the point of all the name-dropping that I cited on the talk page. I tried to include only the name-drops that seemed most significant, such as by the webmaster of lashtal.com, the drummer from Tool, Chas Clifton's blog (another very well respected occult historian). And these name drops weren't just passing mentions, many glowingly described him as being among the most important figures in contemporary magic. Denial reckoned he himself could probably get a newsgroup of 165 members to form to discuss his work, but I don't believe it! Not unless he did something quite notable.

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors": The people that Denial says are not "intellectually independent" are Chumbley's peers and successors. Lets not discount them, eh?

So we have a number of criteria for notability each of which are arguable, however I believe that each single criterion could be successfully argued on its own merits (assuming most of our sources haven't been discounted on the grounds of "intellectual dependance", which would seem like pure obscurantism to me.) Happily Wikipedia allows us consider notability by multiple criteria together as carrying more weight.

Ultimately this has to come down to an informed decision by the editors over how we're going to interpret the various sources, and how we're going interpret the guidelines themselves. There are no cut and dried rules we can follow, as implied by the passage: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Ultimately we must be guided by our knowledge of the field, and from the way the discussion is going so far we seem to be gravitating towards to conclusion that Chumbley is either "notable in his field" or "highly notable in his field". Fuzzypeg☻ 01:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

According to recent discussion at the article talk page, there is no reason to believe Howard was a student of Chumbley. I had assumed that was the basis for Denial arguing that he wasn't "intellectually independent". Is there any other reason for doubting his independence, or can we dispense with that concern? Fuzzypeg☻ 04:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability references have been added to the Chumbley page by IPSOS, who has found references to Chumbley in Dave Evans' new book, The History of British Magic After Crowley: Kenneth Grant, Amado Crowley, Chaos Magic, Satanism, Lovecraft, the Left Hand Path, Blasphemy and Magical Morality. For those of you here who might not be familiar with Evans' work, Evan's has a PhD on this subject. It is my understanding that he has worked closely with Hutton. As an aside, I also hear that the book was welcomed with glowing reviews. Lulubyrd 12:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment/Delete: Between Reienke, Lulubyrd, and Fuzzypeg they keep using the same doubtful references to "imply" that Chumbley is notable in a Wiki/academic context. Nothng they have put forward so far suggest that Chumbley is notable under wiki criteria. All they have done is taken the same flawed references but using different arguments to "dress" up these references. All this has shown is that they havent learned anything and are still presenting lies has some sort of verifiable fact. They keep going back to the Hutton and the Howard refernces. In the comment section i have repeated that the use of Howard's material is non neutral since he knew Chumbley has a student. This doesnt meet NPOV. Secondly Hutton was approached by Chumbley to be included in his papers. This is not non neutral criteria. Hutton has a histroian was in no position to judge if Chumbley was a legitimate occultist or somebody who was promoting his publishing vanity project. Hutton had to take at face value what Chumbley told him. In this context there was no indeoendent material to judge Chumbleys claims. Hutton would have published anything that Chumbley said since he had a book to fill. So in that context the Hutton references are not neutral and dont meet NPOV criteria of Wikipedia. Has a secondary note, Fuzzypeg, Lulubyrd, or Reineke should not be allowed to edit or manipulate the article until this is resolved one way or another. Collectively they have had plenty of time to present a decent article under have just used it to promote their own personal tastes to the detriment of fact and accountability.--Redblossom 15:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again you, Redblossom, are failing (or refusing) to address the issues raised on this page. If anyone wants to bar me from editing the Chumbley article while deletion is being discussed that's absolutely fine with me. The only substantial amendment I have made recently was in response to your quibbling over references to "Serpent Cross" etc.; you didn't like them, I removed them - you should be pleased with that.

Deletion of the article has been proposed by Denial on account of lack of notability of the subject, Andrew Chumbley. NPOV can be achieved through editing - deletion, like extinction, is forever. Redblossom, you must address yourself to the question of "notability" in the first instance, because that is what is being established here. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:N reineke 16:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There is no reason not to edit the article during the AfD. References can be added and the text can be made more NPOV. Often an inintended effect of AfD nominations is that articles are substantially improved during AfD's, which is a good thing. --Parsifal _Hello 17:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed Dave Evans' book, I believe this is indeed a non-trivial, significant, intellectually independent reference. Consequently, I change my opinion to: keep. This does nothing to alter my assessment of the sources previously mentioned; I maintain the Cauldron is insignificant by anything but in-group standards and CI had less than 30 issues since 1980, while the Journal (which may or may not be academic) and Hutton (certainly academic) mentioned Chumbley only superficially. However, this is now inconsequential as I believe the Evans reference is enough.

I would have preferred to arrive at this proof of notability without the off-topic rambling, insults, false accusations of lying or sockpuppetry, and misrepresentations of my statements. This discussion does not leave me with the impression occultists are particularly able to control their emotions and subdue their egos, as some of you claim they can... anyway, I believe this new source settles the discussion, so see you on some other page. - Denial 17:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of us have not been having a go at you at all, denial, nor have most of us said a word against you, whereas you have just slagged off most of the editors here with that paragraph. Who is it that can't control their (random) emotions, then?Merkinsmum 20:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep/Comment. This is the first time I have ever been sucked into wikipedia for anything of this sort. I have studied Chumbley for about a year now, and to come by here one day and see such an amazing article about Mr. Chumbley, his work and infleunces, made me quite happy. His own work is quite dense, and multifaceted, and the students of his work would gain greatly from a good article on him. He is under-appreciated, perhaps because that is what he wanted. Many don't understand his work, and get frustrated; others spend all this money on his works, and get pissed off that they don't open intellectually as easily as other books on magick. Yet this article is a refuge and will hopefully be built up slowly by people who can help others to understand Mr. Chumbley. This article opens up a highly important figure to a wider world.

He has had notoriety in specific circles: people who can afford, and are willing to spend the money, on his works, or those who get them before they go up in price. he has had a large impact upon the work of many streams of occult thought and has earned himself a place beside many of the others greats of this century, and that is what this argument is really about- is he worth being up here? Well, his work itself would argues yes to those who have had the pleasure of studying them. That aside however, the references are to show that he is important; Mr. Hutton, a foremost scholar on witchcraft, would say so. As would Michael Howard, the editor of one of the world best magazines on witchcraft. Jan Fries had nothing but praise, as did Gavin Semple, one of Britain's foremost Austin Osman Spare scholars. Danny Carey, drummer of Tool and open occultist, respects him enough to place the Azoetia in the album artwork alongside books by Crowley and John Dee, quite the compliment. Finally, there is a shining reference by Kenneth Grant, which I will get to in a second. Kenneth Grant is a massive influence upon modern day creative occultism, and a major force of many controversial ideas and opinions, but it could not be argued by any occultist that he is a figure of great notoriety and influence the world over, and has been a major part of the occult revival since the 19070's. In his "Beyond the Mauve Zone", on pg. 279, footnote 14: "Andrew Chumbley's Azoetia, as far as it is based upon the Current transmitted to Austin Osman Spare, is one of the few contemporary works on Witchcraft worth citing, and I take this opportunity of bringing the book to the notice of all serious students of the Zos Kia Cultus." This is no light reference, at least if one takes anything about the occult under-current into consideration. In my own opinion, this alone would be a good enough reference to establish the worth of Mr. Chumbley to found on Wiki.

One thing I feel about wiki is that it provides information on topics not found anywhere else on the internet, and is great because it covers such a diverse range of strands and currents in great detail. I would also say that articles about people and their ideas do not waste space if it increases the databases knowledge about topics and streams, such as Western Occultism. To leave Mr. Chumbley out of that would be unfair to the people who come to wikipedia to learn about things they do not know about. Most of the arguments against this article I honestly do not understand- such vehemence and spite, nagging about the "validity of references", commiting essentially academic hairsplitting, claiming that references which are not "academic" are automatically invalid, which itself is insulting a whole subculture; putting down such great magazines as The Cauldron because it does not fulfill some subjective standard of what counts towards showing an individuals importance (when so many people support the article and Mr. Chumbleys importance to a database of knowledge and reference) I just can not understand. I mean, I could understand it if all the evidence brought forward to defend Mr. Chumbley could be proved invalid or non-existent; but just because the sources are not of the "normal" "academic" persuasion I do not feel invalidates them. these currents exist, and though not important to everybody, are very important to a group of people who are involved in a controversial and unique area of study. It truly would be a shame, and a step backwards, if wikipedia lost this article.

All that said, I am glad to se such an article, and in such detail. I imagine it was a work of love and curiosity. As a person who has nothing but the highest regards to for the beauty and intricacy of Andrew Chumbley's thought I find this article to be wonderful and a testament to a man who put his whole into what he occupied his life with (or i could say, his "occupation") into his Work and passion, which was magick and his dedication to the Pagan religion; an effort, i feel, will work towards a greater understanding and appreciation of the natural religion, and perhaps clear away some of the falsity that has aggregated around it since the modern "wiccan" revival. I also hope that those who did not think Andrew worth being here will have the chance to let down their negative judgments and perhaps get the chance to look through and honestly appraise Andrews books- things which are truly unique works of art, and deserving of every penny they fetch on the market.

Well, that is my two cents. To those reviewing this deletion request, I hope you put a lot of careful thought into this matter- I feel that it will represent whether lesser known, but equally important figures, aught to find their way on here or. Ronsharpe 21:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• We've gone five days here, gentlemen. Have we completed our task? Lulubyrd 23:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Also searching Google for "Chumbley" alone, only shows this article as a reference to "Andrew" on the first results page. --Sc straker 03:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

*Note The history of the posts by the person above, Sc Straker, appears to show that he was trolling through the AfD pages, starting with the letter A, voting to delete each one. Lulubyrd 08:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• note hey lulu, that's not really fair, anyway he's voted to keep some, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Cory. I like to mainly go on AfD at the moment, most of the articles that reach AfD are clear-cut cases of not being worth an article (such as bands who are only mentioned on their own myspace.) So people might seem really evil deletionists if you read how they've voted in AfD's, but that's because so many of the articles on AfD are inevitably going to be deleted. Sc straker's google test above though, is a bit random. I'm going to nag an admin to close this AfD now, as it's more than 5 days.Merkinsmum 14:04, 29 September 2007 (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.