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. The keep opinions have not proven that this article meets WP:BIO. Coverage in reliable secondary sources is key here, and "independent reviews" are held to this standard as well. Grandmasterka 08:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald del Campo (2nd nomination)[edit]

Gerald del Campo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

1st AFD from 8/9/2006

Delete Geral Del Campo, while an author of occult books, is not a notable person. His contributions to occultism are minimal and only within the organization OTO is he recognized as an authority. I harbor no personal ill-will towards Mr. Del Campo at all and I feel that this article would be better served in www.thelemapedia.org than here. Subject is not worthy of inclusion in a broad-based, general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia.org. Subject's literary works are marginal in the field of occultism and are of interest to only a small percentage of a specific sect (Thelemites.)

• Delete - While an cursory look at the article may imply notability, further research only showed 3 unique google hits. Seems like he might be notable to a few people, but not notable to pass WP:BIO. No Google news hits, no hits from reliable source. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sounds a bit outside the mainstream of authors, but he isn't necessarily non-notable. His books are on Amazon [1] and are actually given favorable reviews by some folks. As a "[p]ublished author ... who received multiple independent reviews" for his books, I'd say he's at least marginally notable under WP:BIO. Coemgenus 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Amazon sells self-published books, and "reviews" on the amazon site are not what WP:BIO is referring to by "independent reviews". Pete.Hurd 16:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Coemgenus. If you've got an ISBN to your name, you're notable to me. Just H 21:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ISBN numbers are given out like confetti. For example, in Finland, Sweden, Norway & Denmark, every single university thesis gets an ISBN number, it may also be true in the USA, I don't know. Merely self-publishing a book is obviously contrary to WP:BIO's standard of notability. Pete.Hurd 16:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Anyone can write a nonsense book, get it published in limited edition, and achieve an ISBN. That does not make the author notable. Notable means generally so, not merely to a small clique.--Anthony.bradbury 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that they got it published by someone other than themselves fits within the definition of "published author" at WP:BIO. I'd agree that self-published work doesn't count there and that should be changed. Just H 23:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Notable means generally so, not merely to a small clique." I couldn't disagree more. Notable doesn't mean generally so, even in the context of Wikipedia. There are many people who never enter general awareness yet deserve an article. For example, if you aren't a physicist it's likely that you'd never hear of Robert H. Dicke, yet it's perfectly suitable that there be a Wikipedia article on him. --Jackhorkheimer 05:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You make a good point, Jackhorkheimer. However, let me give you a counter-example. I live in an area where the Boy Scouts of America is a large, thriving, and viable organization. They have thousands of members in the "council" region where I live and have numerous property holdings (more even that many minority religious organizations, i.e. the Ordo Templi Orientis.) The leaders of this "Chocoloco Council" (as it is called) have significant influence over the community and many fully grown, adult men still maintain connections with the BSA and the Order of the Arrow. Now, the question raised here is, Do the individual leaders of the Chocoloco Council in Northeast Alabama warrant inclusion in Wikipedia? Remember, this group is a potent force within the Boy Scouts of America which is a potent religio-polticial force within America! Should "Scout Master John X" from down the road have a Wikipedia entry simply because he elected, appointed, or otherwise empowered "Council Leader" and/or because he writes/revises a Scout manual, issues an article for "Boy's Life" magazine, or otherwise makes some small contribution to Scouting? Or should the inclusion criteria be broader, more catholic (in the lower-case "c" use of the word) than that? I would argue that this is a slippery slope argument. You must be careful regarding criteria for inclusion because publications alone may not suffice to merit notability. Likewise, should Wikipedia include every author of every minor religious tract ever written on the basis that some such piece of literature "saved thousands of souls?" The slope is slippery, indeed. Mens Keper RaEyes down, human. 22:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per arguments above Pete.Hurd 02:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's getting involved in publically-accessible webzines (e.g. www.rendingtheveil.com) and releasing new material, increasing his relevance and visibility online.Sheta 13:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 13:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is well and good but I notice by your name and a quick scan of the site that you are affiliated with this website. I am also attempting to verify that this site is in no ways affiliated with any of the religio-spiritual organizations of which Mr. Del Campo is a member. Unfortunately, doing a WHOIS lookup on the URL is proving useless. Can you please give some history of this website's service, its function, its creation date, and over-all history? One of the central guidelines of Wikipedia ("pillars" I believe they are called) is that Wikipedia does not serve as an advertising service for companies, persons, religious organizations, charitable organizations, or websites. Mens Keper Ra Eyes down, human. 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well if we're going to examine the person behind the contributions, I'm curious: are you the same user as Mod176? I'm just wondering because your contributions bear a striking similarity to theirs, particularly as regard to AFDs. --Jackhorkheimer 07:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment'. No. I am not "Mod176" nor do I have any idea who that may be. I would like to suggest to you that just because I target certain articles for deletion does not mean that I am another user or editor. However, please note that the articles I have tagged for deletion pertain to persons who operate on the fringes of the occult community (with which I am intimately familiar.) That others may be familiar with these people (and thus doubt the validity of their inclusion in Wikipedia) is not entirely ureasonable. Eyes down, human. 09:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the above. NN author. Eusebeus 21:52, 16 January 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.