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 (weakly). –
Joe (
talk) 13:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. This one is tough for me. I was prepared to !vote straightforwardly to delete, until I saw
this book, which looks like an RS to me (to the extent any work on magic can be an RS). There's some fairly detailed critical commentary on Weibel's "Annotated Bibliography of Conjuring Psychology" there—which made me think about
WP:NAUTHOR as a criterion. This was the only source I could find where Weibel's work is discussed, however, hence my still being in the delete column.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk) 16:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete: I'm not seeing a whole lot of coverage out there.
AleatoryPonderings's source would be persuasive, if there was anything else by the way of sigcov I could see; I'm not just going to take one (NN) author's word for the subject's importance.
Ravenswing 23:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 18:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete I agree with the other weak delete reasons. One source is good, but not enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. Unfortunately, the few brief mentions he seems to have in other stuff seems like notability weak sauce. That said, I think it would be fine to delete it with the ability for it be recreated when or if another in-depth source materializes at some point. --
Adamant1 (
talk) 01:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep or merge It's borderline on guidelines; some calibration should be made that less sources from the are on-line. IMO it's encyclopedic and should be in Wikipedia somewhere.North8000 (
talk) 15:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep : Lightburst sums up my feelings. He does seem to meet
WP:ANYBIO. His magazine writing seems to indicate he has importance in his field. He has brief mentions in multiple RS and [WP:BASIC]] states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" He may pass
WP:NAUTHOR, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Under
WP:BIO, " "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"; I think he meets this. The article is certainly notable for being the first one where I vote "Keep" and
AleatoryPonderings votes "Delete" ;) //
Timothy :: talk 21:31, 18 August 2020 (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.
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 (weakly). –
Joe (
talk) 13:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. This one is tough for me. I was prepared to !vote straightforwardly to delete, until I saw
this book, which looks like an RS to me (to the extent any work on magic can be an RS). There's some fairly detailed critical commentary on Weibel's "Annotated Bibliography of Conjuring Psychology" there—which made me think about
WP:NAUTHOR as a criterion. This was the only source I could find where Weibel's work is discussed, however, hence my still being in the delete column.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk) 16:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete: I'm not seeing a whole lot of coverage out there.
AleatoryPonderings's source would be persuasive, if there was anything else by the way of sigcov I could see; I'm not just going to take one (NN) author's word for the subject's importance.
Ravenswing 23:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 18:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete I agree with the other weak delete reasons. One source is good, but not enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. Unfortunately, the few brief mentions he seems to have in other stuff seems like notability weak sauce. That said, I think it would be fine to delete it with the ability for it be recreated when or if another in-depth source materializes at some point. --
Adamant1 (
talk) 01:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep or merge It's borderline on guidelines; some calibration should be made that less sources from the are on-line. IMO it's encyclopedic and should be in Wikipedia somewhere.North8000 (
talk) 15:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep : Lightburst sums up my feelings. He does seem to meet
WP:ANYBIO. His magazine writing seems to indicate he has importance in his field. He has brief mentions in multiple RS and [WP:BASIC]] states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" He may pass
WP:NAUTHOR, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Under
WP:BIO, " "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"; I think he meets this. The article is certainly notable for being the first one where I vote "Keep" and
AleatoryPonderings votes "Delete" ;) //
Timothy :: talk 21:31, 18 August 2020 (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.