Talk:Mandrake of Oxford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on June 5, 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep on procedural grounds (nomination was made by a sockpuppet of a blocked user), without prejudice to renomination by a user in good standing.

[edit] Mandrake of Oxford

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Mandrake of Oxford, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Coldmachine 15:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's already been prodded once. You can't prod it again. IPSOS (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise that. I just re-read the Wiki deletion nomination procedure and see that you are correct: if an objection to a deletion nomination is made (and passes) then the article cannot be nominated again. Seems...somewhat totalitarian but there we go. I still question the validity of this article. Mandrake Press is NOT a notable organisation which would merit an encyclopedic entry so why it has one is anyone's guess. Well, yours apparently. Could you please explain your links to this? I see from your username and the related article that you clearly demonstrate an interest in the occult and in particular the works of the Golden Dawn (i.e. Aleister Crowley). Since Mandrake Press publishes in this very same area I would hazard a guess that you have a vested interest?Coldmachine 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't know why you are asking IPSOS about this. I started the article. And I don't even live on the same continent as the company. Nor do I sell books. No vested interest whatsoever. Sorry to disappoint you. GlassFET 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I just noticed that you also confused this company with Mandrake Press. You do know that they aren't the same, don't you? Do you think that that company also doesn't "merit" an encyclopedia article? If so, why are you only concerning yourself with this article? GlassFET 21:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking IPSOS since it was he who accused me of being a sockpuppet...I assumed he had motives for casting aspersions against my name owing to his connections to this article. This does not, however, make the point redundant: that this article relates to a company of no particular merit within the world of publishing which would warrant encyclopedic attention. Mandrake Press, as you rightly say, is a different entity: forgive my earlier lack of clarification in the use of this company's name in reference to Mandrake of Oxford (this article). Mandrake Press has a history of publishing since 1929, and since it was founded by an individual of some import (or notoriety depending on your perspective) it can be considered an appropriate entry for historical/contextual purposes (i.e. understanding Crowley's life work, experiences, and legacy). This company - Mandrake of Oxford - has no such associations of value.Coldmachine 22:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I also note from your own user page that you have an interest in the Golden Dawn as well. Again, I would have to wonder at your own objectivity in this matter as well.Coldmachine 22:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the current Mandrake Press and Mandrake of Oxford have about the same status. They were both simply named in honor of the 1929 company and have no other connection to it. Mandrake of Oxford is slightly older. GlassFET 22:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Questioning a user's objectivity on the basis of their interests is veering toward violation of the assume good faith and no personal attacks policies of Wikipedia. I suggest you desist from these insinuations. GlassFET 22:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check your own remarks in other talk pages then, in that case. Coldmachine 07:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific. Don't think I've done what you're doing. Please give an example diff. GlassFET 15:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"you are the edit warrior in this case", "please stop your warring", "you cool off", "edit warring to make a point is just plain silly", from this discussion. Anyway, this is all off topic for this article. Take the discussion to my user page if you have a problem with this. Coldmachine^Talk 18:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Those have nothing to do with claiming you have a COI because of some specific interest. Bah, you were warring. GlassFET 18:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No conflict of interest here. Don't work for or otherwise have any connection with the company. IPSOS (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)