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 no consensus, although the arguments in favor of deleting had the discussion leaning that way. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Webster[edit]

Sam Webster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete - Not notable, unverifiable. Possible WP:COI & vanity issues. 22 links to same *.hermetic.com domain are bulk of sources in article.

The Sam Webster article was cut & pasted directly from here. Looking in the history, and by comparing the autiobiography of the creator of the entry here, it is quite clear that the article was written by Sam Webster himself. Then banned user 999 copy & pasted the article to wikipedia. So in the original format, this is clear WP:COI. Most of the references and links circle back to the *.egnu.org domain the original article was hosted on or the spammy personal website *.hermetic.com which has 226 links from wikipedia. I think this is clear undue weight, since hermetic.com is essentially someone's private website. Also, the subject of the article has not authored a single book, and the scant interviews and secondary mentions of him are in zines and self-published books which do not meet notability requirements. - WeniWidiWiki 03:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's more likely that Al Billings, who owns hermetic.com, had something to do with it... and the rest of the hermetic.com links from wikipedia. Khabs 07:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but this is pretty compelling. Diff - WeniWidiWiki 07:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not Aleph. Somebody else wrote it. Khabs 08:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The linkspam is out of control. YechielMan 04:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From what I can see, there is no indication his writings have been published anywhere. One interview in Modern Pagans does not a notable person make. --Pigman^talk 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe they've all been published. Unfortunately, Al Billings, who runs the hermetic.com site, doesn't bother to tell where things were first published. Khabs 07:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, many of the articles listed were published in Mezlim, Gnosis or PanGaea.
• Delete Unless WP:BIO requirements are met. janejellyroll 04:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I suspect more sources can be found. I'll trim the linkspam, which isn't a valid reason to delete, is it? Khabs 06:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - everything appears to be verifiable. Khabs 07:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first edit for Khabs was Feb. 10.[1] --Pigman^talk 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there must be something wrong with the article because nobody calls himself member of the Golden Dawn since 1914 anymore, it was dissolved. What remained is the Golden Dawn in the outer, captained by Mathers and Thelema gurued by Crowley, both of which have also been dissolved ... so I guess this is somebody who wants to establish himself as Great Kophta. Besides, there are problems with WP:V Alf photoman 15:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly all the information in the article is verifiable. I believe Webster was an initiate of Regardie's. That's the Golden Dawn tradition. Khabs 15:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I suspect Khabs is the same user who made/edits this account. Check edit history. Captain Barrett 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? Your comment is incomprehensible. What does it have to do with whether the subject of the article is verfiably notable? Khabs 17:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep asserts notability and provides good sources. Jefferson Anderson 21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it. I think it is just a copied article from the web page up there. BackMaun 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first edit for BackMaun was Jan. 6.[2] Khabs 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete At least he is an actual person, and there are two mentions from outside his own cult, and he has actually received a degree from a well-known mainstream theological school. It is hard for an outsider to tell which of these individuals, (or groups, which may be much the same thing), is actually notable. There are no sales figures for the books, and the web sites change and mirror each other. What we need to know is how notable they are within their own community. In more conventional religions there is are offices and distinctions that are commonly accepted and discernible from outside.

From another AfD, I put some credit on the listing in http://www.93current.de/groups.shtml, and a little on http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Fcrowley.htm. They both seem to list groups other than their immediate affiliation. He is mentioned in neither. The wiki article in http://www.egnu.org/thelema/Sam_Webster lists links for more of his writings than the one here, but examining them would require deciding on their theological merits, which is fortunately not relevant to WP. There is a problem with evaluating the in-universe sources as compared to the mainstream: a totally insignificant person to the initiated may be good at getting conventional interviews. I accept the material as V, but not as showing N.

and we have deleted articles for ministers of ordinary well-known religions who have done at least as much. The key distinctive accomplishment of this less-than-conventional figure is that he has acquired the basic degree that all conventional ministers acquire.

DGG 00:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• • changing vote to weak keep---is at least documented. Whether his work is notable or just written about is hard to say, but as he is apparently leader of a religious set, that's not a distinction for WP to make. DGG 05:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed what he is notable for, as a pioneer of open source religion. Christine Wicker devotes close to 20 pages to this in her book, much of it specificly about Webster and his Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn. Khabs 01:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should also note that while http://www.93current.de/groups.shtml doesn't list his Golden Dawn order, it does list his church (Ecclesia Gnostica Universalis), next to last link on the page. Khabs 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - smells like spam to me. :bloodofox: 01:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - on the low end of notability, however there seems to be enough 3rd party sources to make a decent article out of. --Jackhorkheimer 05:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Doesn't appear to be particularly notable, the article doesn't make a particularly strong case for significant attention outside that community.ALR 17:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to have enough credits as a writer and liturgist to merit an article. A journalist or other type of writer need not write books to be notable if there's a big enough and respected enough body of articles & essays. The data in this article keeps growing; I urge those calling for a delete to at least wait a while longer and see what else those supporting the article come up with, then revisit the issue. (However, it might be advisable to limit the list of essays to ones that have been published; including a link to the rest might be preferable.) Rosencomet 23:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment on open source religion -- I would gladly delete that article, much more so than tis, , and claiming it makes him less notable, not more. WP can not be used to support WP. DGG 03:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability established enough and seems to be well-documented. Foolio93 22:57, 17 February 2007 (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.