Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionel Snell

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Snell

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet either general notability guideline or notability guideline for biographies, due to fundamental lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Yworo (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I always see this guy mentioned as one of the authorities on modern occultism, and his book SSOTBME cited as one of the must-reads. Do a Google Books search for his names Lionel Snell and Ramsey Dukes; a lot of mentions (and not just mere mentions) in different published sources establishes notability. (I'll make an effort to actually add some of those to the article as references.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just remember, only independent third-party reliable sources can be used to establish notability. No quantity of unreliable sources do. Yworo (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, certainly a number of those sources look reliable. Get a couple of the best added to the article and I'll withdraw the nom. Do be careful though, quite a few of them appear to be self-published, but not all. (I sure wish Google would list the publisher in the search results, it would save a lot of time and clicks). Yworo (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, looking more closely, there seem to be at most two or three sources that might qualify as reliable. Can't tell if these are also the ones with significant biographical content, as Google thinks I've looked too many pages recently. Yworo (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination, the sources Jeraphine Gryphon has supplied support notability and I have found further sources which are even better. Yworo (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Snell's work is cited widely in the occult world. If the nomination has been withdrawn, can we now close the AfD?--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just waiting for an admin to do so. Feel free to contact one to expedite. Yworo (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (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.