Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Not enough independent sources. This should not be read as an endorsement of Coldmachine's allegations of conflicts of interest. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandrake of Oxford

Mandrake of Oxford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Reopening AfD3 based on discussion with admin here.
Mandrake of Oxford is not the subject of secondary sources, as required of criteria in

Comment - there is no

WP:COI after having been told by both parties [1] [2] that there is no affiliation with the subject. From previous comments by the nominator, he is basing this opinion simply on interest in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. If editing articles on subjects that one is interested in is COI, Wikipedia would be dead. In return, I note that "another" user Emnx who has been blocked for three months for sockpuppetry was also very interested in deleting this article and made similar accusations, but would never directly answer conflict of interest questions himself. Thus, I formally ask Coldmachine - do you have any association with competing publisher Mandrake Press, for example, working for them or owning a large collection of their works? IPSOS (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

No, not at all. If you read my user page you will see what I'm up to in life. I have no interest in the occult, in the Golden Dawn specifically, or in publishing houses that produce material on those subject areas. I also do not need to defend my position here: I have not edited the article, and my reasoning for nomination is explained above.Coldmachine 13:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per comments on previous AfD --Javit 11:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Mandrake of Oxford figures significantly in British magic after Crowley. This is covered in independent secondary source, The History of British Magic After Crowley: Kenneth Grant, Amado Crowley, Chaos Magic, Satanism, Lovecraft, the Left Hand Path, Blasphemy and Magical Morality by professional academic researcher Dr. Dave Evans, Ph.D. Meets
  WP:CORP. IPSOS (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: This source is not independent. It has been authored by Dave Evans, owner of an occult e-commerce store, and the same individual cited within the article as having interviewed the owner of the company, Mogg Morgan. His own personal connection with the subject matter of the article does not reconcile with the primary test of notability which states that "a primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself..." etc. Coldmachine^Talk 21:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you seem to be confused here. The subject is Mandrake of Oxford, not "the Occult". If he's not an employee of the company in question, he's independent. IPSOS (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My point was that this individual runs his own occult publishing company: he cannot be considered independent for that very reason. It has nothing to do with the general subject (the occult), but the subject of the article: another publishing company (Mandrake of Oxford). My apologies if that wasn't clear. An analogy might be Microsoft publishing a work in which AOL, Yahoo and IBM are described.Coldmachine^Talk 08:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such sources would be perfectly acceptable. Independent in this context simply means not done by an employee of the company or for hire. IPSOS (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Surely this argument just above is wrong. Dave Evans interviewed Mogg Morgan. He is an academic and clearly (at least to me) not linked to Mandrake of Oxford. He is not dependent on the subject of the article - Mandrake. Just because he understands the subject matter does not stop him being independent. If it did, I would not be allowed to edit any article about chemistry. --Bduke 03:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see above for response. My apologies for not making the term 'subject' more clear. I do not refer to 'the occult' but to 'Mandrake of Oxford' specifically.Coldmachine^Talk 08:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then that means that the source should be used with care. It does not mean the source should be completely rejected. In this case you are objecting to him making his competitor notable. That does not make sense. BTW, I just wandered in here as it mentioned Oxford. I have no truck with the occult and I certainly do not have a conflict of interest. This article is as notable as other stuff and you have not made a convincing case for deletion. If in doubt, keep. --Bduke 10:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "you have not made a convincing case for deletion": this is in your opinion. So far I count two in favour of deletion, and two in favour of keep. I accept the point that "if in doubt, keep", but believe I have adequately outlined my reasons for AfD nomination in the opening paragraph. One source, and one which cannot be considered entirely objective at that, does not suggest this company is notable by any stretch of the imagination.Coldmachine^Talk 15:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.

Whilst the concept of "notability" is an idea that many deletionists use as a basis for selecting which articles ought to remain and which are to be deleted, I will admit in one sense there is no really objective criteria on which to make a decision. However, I do not see any real sources within the article that assert notability. The article itself asserts that "Mandrake of Oxford is best known for discovering German occultist freestyle shaman Jan Fries" — surely that is, in itself, not a particlularly notable act or something to be considered famous for. Equally, being the publisher of the Journal for the Academic Study of Magic for the University of the West of England is, in itself, not a particlularly notable act or something to be considered famous for. Furthermore, considering that two of the references in the footnotes are from the company's own website and a third reference is an interview with the owner talking about the company I am led to support the proposed delete on the grounds that "Mandrake of Oxford is not the subject of secondary sources, as required of criteria in WP:CORP"

Note: COI is not grounds for a delete although a "lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference" does seem to be to the detriment of a NPOV here. --Arthana 17:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user account (Arthana) was created 3 days ago. Today is the first time this user has participated in AfDs. IPSOS (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your facts! — today is not the first time I have participated in AFDs--Arthana 08:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: This user appears likely to be a

sockpuppet of blocked user Emnx based on this report. I will open a checkuser to be sure. GlassFET 18:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - As pointed out above, the sources themselves possess an aspect of
  WP:CORP, hence delete. -- Kesh 18:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per IPSOS and Bduke. There is nothing wrong with the references and IMO they establish notability. GlassFET 15:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Getting back to subject of article, the sources do not establish notability since I see no source that would be acknowledged as reliable. --Work permit 02:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST TO ADMIN TO SUSPEND AFD

GlassFET and IPSOS created the article concerned. I believe this AFD has been compromised by the actions of these two editors and their alleged COI. I request that this discussion and Mandrake Press be dealt with on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere.

Reason for Request
Since I have been accused of being a sock puppet by IPSOS I have been carefully investigating the events leading to the present discussion.

There are three main issues on which I base my request for suspension of this discussion.

Intention to circumvent AFD
I note that during this discussion IPSOS has duplicated the contents of the Mandrake of Oxford article into Mandrake Press despite having previously added diff tags to both articles and creating a disambiguation page to avoid confusion between them! Presumably this action was intended to keep the Mandrake of Oxford information on Wikipedia in the event that this AFD is determined as delete.

False Accusations against Opposing Editors
I note that prior to the allegations made against me, that IPSOS has recently made two other false sock puppet/ puppetmaster allegations (they've been investigated and neither has been banned!) :-

The first was against Whateley23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with whom he'd had a disagreement. Whateley23 was accused of being the "real puppetmaster"! [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx]|Suspected sock puppets/Emnx]

and

The second was against Coldmachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who placed a PROD tag on Mandrake of Oxford and who subsequently re-opened this AFD. Coldmachine remains accused of being a sock puppet. Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (2nd)

the accusation against me followed shortly thereafter :-

Arthana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) voted in an AFD and disagreed with IPSOS and then accused of being a sock puppet. Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (3rd)

Meatpuppets
There does seem to be a pattern emerging here and with two prior false allegations already to his/her name I am not very inclined to assume good faith on the part of IPSOS. Equally I note that when IPSOS makes a report of a sockpuppet, GlassFET requests Check User. This means as creators of the article and because they are in now effect acting and voting in consort they must now be regarded meatpuppets.

Therefore, given the following :-

• the suspicion mentioned in the main discussion above that IPSOS and GlassFET have a COI,
• that IPSOS and GlassFET are acting and voting in consort
• that the sock puppet allegations made by IPSOS and GlassFET may be little more than attempts to remove or disparage views that don't coincide with their own
• the low number of votes
• the contentious nature of the issues and events

I feel the only sensible conclusion is that this discussion should be suspended forthwith, all aspects properly investigated and the matter dealt with at a higher level. A default keep for lack of consensus would not, in the circumstances, be a satisfactory outcome.--Arthana 01:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to request

Gee, if only you were the nominator, you could withdraw the nomination! IPSOS (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. However, I note from the history of this article that you twice blanked this information. Furthermore, I note that since then you archived your talk page to remove the most recent postings there — the most recent four were 1) request to keep a civil tone, 2) Some friendly advice about being sucked into conflicts, 3) a vandalism warning and 4) a personal attack warning. Reading through the background material relating EMNX (especially deleted materials from page histories etc.) I found that you regularly remove criticisms from your talk page and that you were previously accused of archiving your talk page to permanently remove such adverse material from your records.--Arthana 08:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep talking. Every word you say makes me more certain you are Emnx. I assume you are making it more obvious to the admins as well. Keep it up. IPSOS (talk) 12:38, 13 June 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.