Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zane B. Stein

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zane B. Stein

Zane B. Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This astrologer does not satisfy WP:GNG, and the claims to notability are minor. There is not significant coverage in reliable sources that are "independent of their promulgators and popularizers" (Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability). The only sources which do mention him are unreliable fringe sources. That this individual has not received attention from mainstream sourcing indicates his lack of notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of notability: http://www.faasa.com.au/documents/zaneb.steinbio.pdf http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Stein%2C_Zane http://matrixstein.wordpress.com/about/ http://www.vicastrology.net/zane-stein-lecture-and-workshop http://ashevillefriendsofastrology.org/pages/zane_stein.htm http://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Zane_Stein http://www.blogtalkradio.com/edwilliam/2011/03/13/talking-with-ed-and-verena — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.86.92 (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Random self published material isn't reliable for wikipedia and does not help to establish notability, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adamlink I need to find what 'sources' are considered usable for Notability by Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to post here, so forgive me if this is not the correct procedure. For example, what sets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Campion as being an acceptable entry?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Adamlink - the proposer of this Article of Deletion (AfD) also put Nicholas Campion up for deletion. The result was a unanimous vote by six editors to keep the article and a look at the discussion will show that one of the main reasons given were that Campion satisfies the requirements of WP:AUTHOR.

The requirement (stated above) for significant coverage in reliable sources that are "independent of their promulgators and popularizers" (Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability) is not applicable as this guideline specifies "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory)". A biography of an individual is not a fringe subject or an aspect of a fringe theory. This guideline has been debated at length and until the rules are changed to specify biographies or individuals as advocated by IRWolfie, this guideline does not apply to this type of article about an individual except where there are details of a particular fringe theory or claim.

Nevertheless, other similar guidelines WP:N and WP:BLP do cover notability of living people. Though the links provided above suggest notability of the author (Zane Stein) within the astrological field and possibly beyond, I would support keeping this biography if it had any references, comments, reviews, interviews or articles from sources that are reliable and independent (i.e. outside the field).

Also, Adamlink - remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes (~) (as described at the bottom of the edit box) these symbols will automatically convert into your username with links and a time stamp. You can test this with a preview before posting. Kooky2 (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kooky, here is a small hint, if you want to address a specific editor leave a comment on their page. Don't take sly swipes at me. The main changes I made to that guideline have stuck. To satisfy getting "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large" requires sources which are not on the fringes pretty much by definition. The reason the RfC got nowhere was because the question was ambiguous and no one was sure what was being discussed and things where all over the place; no consensus was the only conclusion to arrive at. The Campion AfD has no connection to this topic, the notability of a different topic (a decision which I think was an erroneous close by a non-admin, where the original NAC was done early by another editor, and then his friend piled in to vote keep when I complained at his user page, and other irregularities) is irrelevant. I got 5 delete votes here, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Kalinski_(2nd_nomination), do I win a prize? Nothing of your post is on topic.IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IRWolfie - my answers applied here and not on your talk page. My message was addressed to Adamlink who asked about 'usable sources' and the Campion article. Since you were evidently not inclined to answer, I supplied the basic facts and without mentioning your name out of discretion rather than any sly agenda. If I had wanted to take a swipe, I would have been much more specific. At the very least I would have added that though I was not involved, the Campion AfD was in my view a classic case where an inappropriate AfD wasted editor's time and yet, you still insist on questioning the good faith of the independent editors rather than your own judgment. If my answer was not satisfactory, you might explain to Adamlink - without jargon as he or she is obviously new to Wikipedia, why Campion, who is in the same field, was deemed acceptable and Stein is, in your view, not.
The other relevant point is that you are still incorrectly citing Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability. It doesn't matter whether some of your changes to the guideline have stuck or not or whether the RFC went your way or not, this rule does not apply to biographies as stated above. Therefore it is misleading to use it as a reason for AfDs until you can persuade editors to change this rule.
Now I don't disagree with all your AfDs. I have supported you before and you may be right in this instance, though I think editors, including new ones, should be given a fair chance to assess the article. Kooky2 (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to me, I was referring to the comments you left to Adamlink, You are fallaciously trying to compare an AfD from 8 months ago to one today, a particular AfD I think was suspect. Your continued use of it is here is an effort to piss me off. This "If I had wanted to take a swipe, I would have been much more specific. At the very least I would have added ..." is purely being a jerk. Knock it off. Fringe sources can not show "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large" (WP:GNG) for the People, because they are part of peripheral non-mainstream movements etc. What fringe sources think is important is not what the world at large does, IRWolfie- (talk)
  • Comment - As fun as it is watching you guys be borderline uncivil to each other - maybe you could get back on point. What policies do you think we should refer to? Why? What part of the history, or sources, or content do you think makes your position tenable and correct? The closing admin doesn't care about 'sly agendas' - so start acting like you're having an AfD discussion and this can be resolved. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! I am not sure how we got so heated up. Right now, I don't believe that we have any disagreement on policies for this AfD. Kooky2 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZaneSteinI am the subject of this article and am in the process of gathering appropriate documentation to substantiate the article as relevant to Wikipedia's guidelines. The first thing I did, today, was to create a link to a copy of the original letter awarding me the Canopus Award.

I would like to know if the following is a useful item to add to the article: In 1994 I was the primary guest on The Sue Lovett Show, a television show on Toledo, Ohio's TV station WUPW-Channel 48 (which is no longer on the air) where I was interviewed about my work on Chiron. While I own a videotaping of the show, I cannot provide a link to the show as the TV Station is no longer existant.
One item that was added a few days ago was about me being interviewed in a non-astrological newspaper in Bowling Green. I have a scan of that article, which I can if need be upload to my website and link to. But the newspaper does not put an archive or article listing on their site.
This link is not self-published - http://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Zane_Stein - Astrotheme did not even consult me asking permission for putting my birth chart and profile on their site. So it is a good link, but unfortunately it is from an astrology site so not 'mainstream'.
Would being referenced in a non-astrology book be a usable reference? I am mentioned in this book: SOUL REFLECTIONS: MANY LIVES, MANY JOURNEYS by Marilyn C. Barrick. The theme of this book is described on the Amazon website as: "Soul Reflections includes intriguing studies of factual and legendary heroes in their quest for enlightenment—and alchemical formulas to enrich our own quest for soul liberation. Topics include curing the angst of the soul, transforming the inner critic, setting sail on a healing journey, and the living flame of love."
I am also mentioned in this book: THE TRUE PHILOSPHER'S STONE by Craig & Suzzan Babcock (writing under the pseudonym Paul Magdalene). This is also non-astrological, and the description is too long to put here but you can read the blurb on the Amazon.com site: http://www.amazon.com/True-Philosophers-Stone-Paul-Magdalene/dp/1418423726
I hope I have correctly entered the above on this discussion. More will be upcoming. Zane Stein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaneStein (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What we would be looking for is several mainstream secondary sources that describe you and your life in significant detail. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contribution, Zane Stein. I have some additional thoughts and some questions for you:
- The letter confirming the Canopus Award is an acceptable link to the article but it is a primary source and for notability, we require secondary sources like a third party reporting on your award.
- Your inclusion on the astrotheme site does arguably count towards notability as the site appears to list the horoscopes of celebrities who are almost entirely outside the field of astrology. It is nevertheless a specialist astrology site and editors may consider that this does not count towards notability outside your field.
- Can you provide the exact date of the TV interview? Subject to the views of other editors, I don't believe there is a need to provide evidence of the TV interview (such as a screen shot) as it occurred before the Internet took off.
- The other links may count towards notability. I may need to ask you more about them.
- The article mentions plans for opening an astrology school, does this school exist yet? Unless there has been some widespread publicity like a newspaper article about the intended opening, this is future history that could be added if and when the school exists. For guidance on this see: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
Kooky2 (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZaneSteinThank you. The date I was the guest on The Sue Lovett Show was April 7, 1994. Screen shots available if needed. Astrology School not yet open so we can remove that if necessary. More to follow as mentioned. —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

  • 1. Canopus Award isn't a famous or notable award. 2. astrotheme isn't a reliable source, it is not relevant if it includes celebrity horoscopes (not sure what difference this would make) 3. Interviews are primary sources 4. The True Philosopher's Stone is not a reliable secondary source (read a few pages from amazon), we couldn't use it to make claims about a living person; can't access it but remember you need significant coverage. 5. The notability or not of a school does not contribute to notability WP:INHERITED. 6. Merely being referenced does not count towards notability, as a great number of people are referenced in books. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


ZaneSteinI understand 'merely being referenced' is not notability. What about being described as a pioneer with specific details? Also, I'd like to ask about the value of this reference: Astrology Encyclopedia by Visible Ink Press (a Detroit publisher that publishes a wide variety of books on science, history, minority studies, and the paranormal as well as astrology.) In the chapter on Chiron my pioneering work is described in a bit of detail and one reference states "Stein's historic pamphlet, Interpreting Chiron......"

While I understand the need to have non-astrological sources, I also feel the fact that my work has been quoted in detail, and often described as THE primary source of Chiron information, by almost every book and magazine author who writes anything that includes Chiron (and I have personally counted close to 100 such references), should be at least one point of significance.
I have been interviewed by reporters from two college newspapers both, which I will try to get source info for; one radio interview on a Philadelphia radio station WHYY-FM; all of these were non-astrological media.
(Of course one internet radio show may not be considered valuable because the show is regularly on astrology, and my interview on camera which is on YouTube may also not be usable as that is also by an astrological source.)ZaneStein (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaneStein (talk • contribs) 09:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews don't help much with notability. It's specifically secondary sources that are of interest since you will need to meet the general notability requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article, cut out some comments and added references to support the content. Zane Stein, can you please be more specific about the Astrology Encyclopedia published by Visible Ink Press, Detroit, MI? The full title of the book, the date of publication, ISBN, the author, any page numbers, links if they appear on the web such as Google books and quote the particular reference to you and your work. Kooky2 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being referenced does not make one notable, or else a great many of us would be notable. That would set the criteria ridiculously low, rather than say a H index of 20, which requires at least 400 references. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Complete lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. The only substantial mention of this person is in unreliable self-published fringe sources that do not meet our sourcing requirements by a long shot, nor do they signify depth, breadth and persistance of coverage. My own searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Subject meets none of the requirements of any of our notability guidelines by a wide mile. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZaneStein"IRWolfie I notice that you removed the comment "he obtained a planetary ephemeris for this new body from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. " as being an anecdote that is unverifiable. "However, I kept a record of the correspondence between Dr Brian Marsden and myself, including the letter which was later published in the Astrological Review, vol 47, No. 1, 1978, a copy of which you can see here: http://zanestein.com/DrMarsden.pdf" "For a secondary source on my communication with Dr Brian Marsden see The Astrology Book: The Encyclopedia of Heavenly Infdluences, by James R Lewis, Visible Ink Press 2003 p.132. "Recently 1995DW, was upgraded to minor planet number 10370 and was finally named Hylonome largely at the suggestion of astrologer Zane Stein and others in communication with Dr Brian Mardsen (sic) of the Minor Planet Center." http://books.google.com/books?id=nPMnUMhZzswC&pg=PA135&dq=zane+stein&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2EPjUbyfG4Wp7Abxi4EQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBg#v=snippet&q=Zane%20Stein&f=false The Astrology Book books.google.com

Letters and emails

"As well, I have some of my further correspondence with Dr Marsden on Chiron, and other bodies, which you can find at these links:

http://zanestein.com/QB1_93c.jpg

http://zanestein.com/MarsdenQB1.jpg

http://zanestein.com/MarsdenComet.jpg

http://zanestein.com/MarsdenElements.jpg

http://zanestein.com/6Centaurs_Brian.jpg

as well as with several other professional astronomers, including David Rabinowitz, the discoverer of Pholus

http://zanestein.com/Pholus2.jpg

As well as Dave Tholen and Oliver Hainaut

http://zanestein.com/Chiron1945.jpg

http://zanestein.com/6Centaurs_Oliver.jpg

ZaneStein (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider the astrology book reliable for making this claim. There is no significance to writing some letters and emails to get information from people, who then reply. I see no reason why that would be mentioned. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IRWolfie when you write "I don't consider the astrology book reliable for making this claim.", are you saying that the author James R. Lewis (scholar), is not a reliable independent secondary source in his various references to Stein in his Encyclopedia? If so, it puts into question a few hundred other links throughout Wikipedia from Dr Lewis, a renowned author. Whether we agree or disagree with the information, we have to accept reliable independent sources. Kooky2 (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lewis is a scholar on new religions, thus he is a relevant figure on those topics, it is not surprising that they link to him, or even maybe use his sources (although he appears to be an anti-anti-cult advocate, which does hamper his use as a neutral source in new religions). He is also a professional astrologer, and this work would not be considered de-facto reliable; his expertise in new religions is irrelevant to the publication of his astrology book in a non-academic source. Individuals are not declared reliable for everything they produce. See WP:RS. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added some more references. As a creative professional, his profile fulfills WP:CREATIVE. He is the first astrologer to research and write about the minor planet, Chiron and reliable independent secondary sources state that he was involved in the naming of another minor planet, Hylonome. His work has since led to a popular new area of study in his field. A search on the web shows that Chiron is now the subject of > 618k astrology articles, blogs and books etc. His books have been translated into several languages and appear to be still in print 25 years after first publication. The German edition is in its 4th reprint according to his publisher (that could be down to bad planning). He is widely cited by his peers and successors (> 40 book titles listed here), invited to lecture at international conferences and has been granted an award for his research and education. The combined evidence from reliable, independent sources shows that Stein is highly notable within his field. He has also attracted attention beyond his field, even though astrology studies rarely attract reliable mainstream or scholarly coverage - no matter how popular the subject remains with the general public. Though we might reasonably question the belief that an obscure minor planet could influence us and a few editors question whether fringe practitioners should be included in Wikipedia at all, our rules were not designed to cleanse these type of articles leaving only an encyclopedia full of 'good mainstream guys'. Kooky2 (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no secondary source showing why astrological writings about Chiron contributes to notability. Being involved in the naming of an asteroid does not contribute to notability, and the source is not reliable for that claim. The discovers of Hylonome were Jewitt & Luu, not Stein. Astrologers can not claim to fulfil WP:ACADEMIC since astrology is pseudoscience (and/or religion depending on how you look at it) and not a legitimate field of research, and it was never the intention of academic to cover those involved in it. Being invited to lecturer at an international conference does not make one notable, or else most scientists would be notable. The reality is that the claims you make are quite ordinary, and not the signs of a truly notable astrologer. James R. Lewis, studies new age religions (setting up an anti-anti-cult group, and is writing this astrology book as a professional astrologer, outside his university job in a non-academic print. So no, I do not view it as reliable. I can give plenty of examples of university professors writing nonsense outside their regular fields in non-academic prints. Also, google searches don't mean anything, WP:GOOGLEHITS. "He has also attracted attention beyond his field,"[citation needed] IRWolfie- (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IRWolfie - I would ask that you don't revert my cited edits on this article. You previously deleted the reference to correspondence with Dr Marsden on the basis that the "anecdote that is unverifiable". Zane Stein then produced good evidence of his correspondence with Marsden over a number of years (some of the links are in the text that you have collapsed) and a reliable, independent secondary source that further verifies and comments on this correspondence. It is important and relevant as it establishes that Stein is a pioneer in his field and obtained data about Chiron before it was published and available in the public domain. Astrologers obtain their planetary data from astronomers and Stein's role here was significant.
No one here is claiming that Stein fulfills WP:ACADEMIC or that he discovered Hylonome or that astrology is not a pseudoscience. This is misrepresenting your opponent's position and therefore a Straw Man argument. I would ask that you strike that out as it misleads other editors. The naming of planets is usually not a scientific act but the symbolism of the name from Greek mythology has significance to astrologers therefore this astrologer being involved in the naming of a minor planet is relevant and notable.
The only possible reason that Professor Lewis's comments in his Encyclopedia are controversial is that they are reliable, secondary and independent and they further support the notability of the subject. If you keep deleting these types of links, you will not allow other editors to judge the merits of the links in relation to the entire article. Editors here are experienced in assessing citations. As this is an AfD, you should let the article have a fair hearing. You can always cut out comments that you don't like if the article survives the AfD as you have done before in at least one of the previous four AfDs of notable astrologers that have not gone your way. Kooky2 (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss article issues, do so on the talk page, rather than filling this AfD with irrelevant points. You are adding content that is about an anecdote sourced solely to primary correspondence, the quote from Lewis's book does not verify the text. We don't stick poor content into articles and only remove them post-AfD, that would make no sense. Anyone looking at the letters will see that it establishes nothing, it is an interested amateur contacting scientists (we don't bite, give it a try), big whoop, how you get from that to calling him a pioneer I do not know, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stein is a professional not amateur astrologer and a pioneer in his field. His correspondence with Dr Marsden at the Minor Planet Center and Professor Lewis's references supports this. There is no claim that Stein is a scientist. As explained, I disagree with your points, but if your point is so obvious, can we let other editors judge the content and give this AfD a fair hearing? You have reverted yet again to a text that doesn't even read correctly. Kooky2 (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yet he is an amateur astronomer; It doesn't matter what his day job is. Please don't tell me what to do. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to amateur astronomers, you are labelling Stein in a way that belittles his relationship with Marsden. The exchange was clearly between two professionals in their own fields with a shared mutual interest. Evidently there is an overlap between astrology and astronomy and in that zone an astrologer does not become an amateur astronomer, any more than an astronomer becomes an amateur astrologer. In most contexts to say someone is an amateur is a put down and if Stein is not notable as you claim, there should be no need to dismiss him unfairly. Kooky2 (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zane accepted that he was an amateur astronomer in response to my point, so can you please drop this unnecessary point. There is no need to burden the AfD with pointless discussions. The characterisation of the email exchange is original research on your part, and I disagree with your interpretation. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZaneSteinIRWolfie - You have collapsed records of my correspondence with Dr Marsden and other astronomers. Shall I assume that you did that simply to keep the page tidy? I would hate to think that your motivation was to cover up the fact that Brian Marsden of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and I had an ongoing exchange in connection with planetary data over many years. He not only provided me data, but was always willing to answer my questions as well. While my contact with other astronomers was of great value to my research, I consider the collaboration with Dr Marsden the most significant and important of all to my work. Truly I could not have done anywhere near the amount of research I have so far done if it hadn't been for his assistance.

And yes, I said 'collaboration' because he was responsive to my suggestions on a number of topics. In 1995 we began a discussion on names for newly discovered Centaurs. At that time I was also working with several other astrologers on Centaurs, and three of us independently came up with the name we thought would fit the Centuar 1993 HA2. So with that impetus I wrote to Dr Marsden, letting him know that myself and the other astrologers all felt the name Nessus was the best fit for this body, could we put the name in the running for it? He wrote back that it would most likely be officially named in the Spring of 1997, and he would see what he could do about having the name Nessus accepted. And he was a man of his word because on April 1997, 1993 HA2 was officially named Nessus. This was the first time in modern history that the suggestions of astrologers in naming an astronomical body were accepted But it wasn't the last time. In 1999, two other names that were sent to Dr Marsden by astrologers were also made official names, and we now have bodies in the solar system called Asbolus and Chariklo. Not to bore you with details, but to my knowledge at least 7 other Centaurean bodies have been named as a result of suggestions sent by astrologers.
So in addition to everything else, that collaboration with Dr Marsden opened a bridge, albeit a small one, between astrologers and astronomers that had been closed centuries ago.
Not only did I have the good fortune of collaborating with Dr Marsden but we also developed a more personal relationship. Over the years we exchanged personal letters, Christmas and birthday cards. And in 1999 I had the good fortune to finally meet and spend some time with him in person in New York. Not that it matters for Wikipedia, but I found him an extremely warm and pleasant man in person, and he was very interested to hear some of my findings on these Centaurean bodies.
You mentioned that my letters show "an interested amature contacting scientists" is a bit of obfuscation. True I am an amateur astronomer, but I wrote to Dr Marsden as a professional astrologer, and Dr Marsden knew full well of my professional status. So in what way does my amateur status in anything relate? Also, if it were only me contacting the astronomers and getting stock answers, or even technical data, it would not have been that signficant. What was significant was the INTERCHANGE of information between myself and Dr Marsden (as well as the other astronomers)....the interchange between a professional astrologer and a professional astronomer.
Yes, astrology is considered a pseudoscience by many, and I will not attempt to argue that catagorization. But prior to the doors of communication opening between myself and Dr Marsden, it was an accepted view that no astronomer would consider astrology as anything other than a waste of time, and not even consider an exchange of ideas. Aside from my pioneering astrological research (which may not meet the requirements because it is done by a pseudoscientist), I can also be considered a pioneer in opening a new connection between astrologers and astronomers, one that has since expanded beyond Dr Marsden. I know of at least two other professional astronomers who are giving a second look at the possible influence of planets and stars on events here on earth. ZaneStein (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed]. You make grand claims yet no mainstream source talks about your work, nor does any mainstream source discuss your emails and letters to Marsden as pioneering "in opening a new connection between astrologers and astronomers", but if any astrologer contacted an astronomer for information about their area of expertise, I would be very surprised if the astronomer refused. (an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, notability is not inherited from someone else by the way). Not everyone is notable, and for example, most scientists are not. Your personal correspondence does not contribute to your notability. If you were friends with Stephen Hawking you would not be more notable, notability is not WP:INHERITED. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my response above on this, these comments suggest that you did not read the exchange of letters before you collapsed Zane Stein's links.Kooky2 (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Despite WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:GOOGLEHITS, and a substantial amount of puffery and misrepresentation of sources, none of the sources proferred even come close to qualifying as a reliable source according to our policies. The subject has been totally ignored by everyone outside of a small segment of the fringe community. No relaible sources means no article. Personal correspondence and mention in "for entertainment purposes" fringe sources does nothing to establish general notability. The subjects own claims for notability above are far from convincing. Still have not turened up anything reliable sources in my own searches, and still think the article should be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the following on a book written in German and would like to know if this is an acceptable reference for Wikipedia: "Philosophische Fragen der Astrologie: (Hg.) Volker H. Schendel - Band 2 der Schriftenreihe Astrologie und Erkenntnis" by Dr. Christoph Schubert-Weller, published in 2011 (a link to it on Google Books can be found here: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=YT7qZV44sOcC&pg=PA106&dq=zane+stein&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gIjnUZq_M4a5O-T7gOgH&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=zane%20stein&f=false:

"Der erste astrologische Forscher in Sachen Chiron, Zane B. Stein, ist zunächst weit weg von diesem Begriff der ,,tiefsten Wunde". on page 106. --- My German is a bit rusty but I think it translates to: "The first astrological researcher in terms of Chiron, Zane B. Stein, even if he was initially far removed from [using] the term of the "deepest wound"."
"Steins Ueberlegungen stehen am Anfang der Chiron-Forschung" on the next page. --- This, I think, translates "Stein's considerations mark the beginning of the research into Chiron."
There are further references on those pages as wellZaneStein (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a self published book through [1] (specifically [2]). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at the article as it stands now after a lot of dicsussion, I don't see any real indication of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources; as might have been expected, coverage appears to be generally limited to sources in the astrology subculture that are of questionable reliability and independence.  Sandstein  06:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the article as it now stands may not reflect it, Stein definitely meets WP:AUTHOR, in that in his field he is (1) regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, and (2) known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. He is THE pioneer and world astrological expert on Chiron, now regarded as an extremely significant part of an astrological chart and listed on all birthcharts. All subsequent authors or commentators on this astrological body have given deference to Stein and used and quoted his data and findings, including some of the authors seen here, and also Debbi Kempton-Smith's very influential and internationally revered (including in The New Yorker magazine, etc.) Secrets from a Stargazer's Notebook, and many other books which do not show up on Google's currently rather clunky and inadequate book search. Here are a few other views of mentions: [3], [4], [5]. Softlavender (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We require substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability. The sources you give are all unreliable. Do you have any RELIABLE sources that SUBSTATIALLY discuss this author from outside of the fringe community that would demonstrate wider notability? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender, thank you for your references. Debbi Kempton-Smith's book was published by Bantam Books in 1982. As you state, it is not possible to search the contents of this book on the web - is this a passing reference to Stein or is there a quotable comment that may add notability? Kooky2 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotation: I've lost the 1982 Bantam edition of the Debbi Kempton-Smith book, and that edition is out of print (though available on used-book sites). The book was reprinted by TopQuark Press in an expanded edition in 1999. Here is a quote from that in the chapter on Chiron, taken from the 1982 edition and then added to with an addendum. I don't have time to copy out all the ten paragraphs she quotes from Stein, but here is her intro:


Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reference and quote is on page 243 of the original Bantam 1982 version. ZaneStein (talk)
  • If he is as notable as you appear to claim, then why don't reliable secondary sources, independent of the promulgators and popularizers exist? Why are we only seeing unreliable sources and links to google? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable in his field, the field of astrology. There are numerous reliable secondary astrology sources that confirm this. What you are inacurately categorizing as "promulgators and popularizers" are independent researchers and noted thinkers in the field of astrology, not vapid daily horoscope vendors in the local tabloid. Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Astrology has not been legitimate field of inquiry for several hundred years, it is clear pseudoscience. That he is involved in standard western astrology and not sun-sign astrology does not give it one iota of extra legitimacy. It is still pseudoscience which has been thoroughly refuted, with no academic legitimacy. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Apparently, not at all notable as an author. Amazon rankings for his books are abyssmal:
Chiron: 3,894,522
Interpreting Chiron: 11,414,358
Daily Position Ephemeris of Chiron: 12,925,151
Essence and Application: A View from Chiron: No ranking (Amazon has never sold a single copy, and only stocks two used copies)
Chiron, essence et interpretation: No Ranking
Very far from a best-selling author, and probably hasn't sold more than a couple of hundred copies worldwide of all his books combined. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The figures quoted are not correct. Dominus did not do more than a superficial exploration on Amazon.com, or he would have seen that, first of all, my book has had more than one printing, and second, that there are definite figures available for Essence and Application: A View from Chiron. Take for example the current, most recently reprinted edition, which you can see here: http://www.amazon.com/Essence-Application-Chiron-Zane-Stein/dp/1933303441/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374489881&sr=1-1&keywords=essence+and+application+a+view+from+chiron

The ranking is a wee bit higher: 412,769.
There is a much older out of print edition, published in 1995, listed, with a very low ranking: 5,292,385.
Essence and Application was a booklet I had written, and it has not been in print separately for years, but was included as part of Essence and Application.
Chiron, essence et interpretation is a French translation of my book. Seriously, if you are going to reference a book published in France for the French market, wouldn't you be wise to look at the French version of Amazon.com? http://www.amazon.fr/Chiron-Essence-Interpr%C3%A9tation-Zane-B-Stein/dp/2884480293/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374490662&sr=8-1&keywords=Chiron%2C+essence+et+interpretation
As you can see there, the book is ranked 210.611
And while you didn't mention it, my book has also been published in Germany. http://www.amazon.de/Wendepunkt-Chiron-Anwendung-Zane-Stein/dp/3925100083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374490777&sr=8-1&keywords=Zane+Stein
Ranking there 383.402
And no, I have not sold millions of copies. Since the book was first published until today, all editions together have sold a good deal more than 'a couple of hundred copies worldwide/. (There was also an Italian edition but that is no longer in print.)ZaneStein (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still unimpressive. Hardly evidence that you are notable as an author. Actually, rather good evidence that you're not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dominus Vobisdu – If the page is deleted, I won't lose any sleep over it. And your description of my books sales as 'abysmal' doesn't offend me, as I know it is an untruth.
What does concern me is the possibility that this entry in Wikipedia not be judged fairly, on its merits, by truly unbiased judges. As I see Wikipedia, that's one of its virtues....that there are people willing to review entries for their worth. And I'd like to always feel my faith is justified in Wikipedia’s unbiased and accurate reporting of all topics, fringe or otherwise.
Your fruitless searches for sources that you, on two occasions, claim to have done appear completely unreliable. I'd hate to think that my page ended up getting deleted based on incorrect reporting of facts and biased judgements.ZaneStein (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but without substantial mention in multiple RELIABLE independent secondary sources, you're just not notable enough to have an article. Your argument is with our policies and guidelines, not with me. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dominus, you are quite wrong when you write "Your argument is with our policies and guidelines, not with me." If you truly had read what I wrote you would see that I have no problem with my profile being deleted if it is truly deemed not to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by unbiased judges who rely on the facts. In each case where you have misrepresented the facts, and I have mentioned this misrepresentation on your part, you have chosen to totally ignore your errors. Now, either your errors are because you are not very good at researching the facts before bringing them into your discussion (and I hope this is the case), or you purposely attempt to omits some of the facts because those facts are inconvenient for your agenda. In either case, totally ignoring your errors when you are called on them is definitely not the work of an unbiased judge who is trying to uphold Wikipedia's policies.ZaneStein (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon has many times fewer French books than English books. You can not compare a ranking in English to French, and act as if the french books are more popular. These books aren't best sellers, nor are they indicative of notability IRWolfie- (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dominus, I find it quite amusing that, when I quoted rankings for editions of my books in different languages to show that in all cases the ranking was much higher up than the erroneous ranking you used, you chose to conclude that I was saying something I never did say....that I was comparing the rankings to show that the French books are more popular. No, all I was showing that in EACH case my rankings were a good bit higher than any of the rankings you had supposedly found to prove your point. It is not Wikipedia's policies that I am responding to. It is your attempts to support the way you interpret those policies with either poor scholarship on your part, or twisting the truth to arrive at the points you are trying to make.ZaneStein (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dominus Vobisdu: Please read WP:AUTHOR. Stein definitely meets criteria (1) and (2), as I have noted above. Your book-sales count is therefore a red herring. That said, you do not have even close to the complete tally of Stein's book sales. To acquire that you would need the yearly Nielsen numbers. Amazon (a single source and an online vendor) is obviously not a reliable source on book sales counts, especially for someone who has been writing since the early 1980s. Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First Wp:GOOGLEHITS, then WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, and now WP:ITSNOTABLE. He doesn't even come remotely close. He's a total zip outside of a tiny fraction of the fringe community. Nothing even resembling substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Actually, nothing resembling any coverage at all in reliable sources. Fringe "for entertainment purposes only" books by self-styled "experts" count for jack shit both in the real world and here on WP. Try Astrowiki. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only going to say this one more time, here: Please read WP:AUTHOR and base your comments on that. Softlavender (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you read it, especially this part:
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
You have no evidence at all from reliable independent sources that he meets either of the criteria you mention. Just a bunch of books by clowns, and this is not Clownopedia.
In other words, if he doesn't exist in reliable independent secondary sources, he doesn't exist at all as far as WP is concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dominus, all that you've proven there is that you didn't read WP:AUTHOR, because you are not quoting from it. Moreover, you are obscuring the facts by casting aspersions and insults. I have no interest in engaging further. Softlavender (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In your own text you aren't claiming he is a notable author or poet, rather you are saying he is notable for his astrology work; WP:AUTHOR simply does not apply to this. WP:AUTHOR is for individuals working in creative disciplines i.e "Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects". To contrast, a scientist notable for his work, is not notable under WP:AUTHOR but WP:ACADEMIC even though they may write many articles and books. Astrology is not recognised as legitimate and so its proponents can not claim WP:ACADEMIC for their work. WP:ANYBIO is the target. Again though, this is not written for the case of pseudoscience, recognition in legitimate fields is what is required. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)::[reply]
IRWolfie, you can try to distort, manipulate, malign, misconstrue, or misquote the guidelines all you want, but the fact is Stein meets WP:AUTHOR and all your posturing cannot change that. Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You accused Dominus (unfairly) of "obscuring the facts by casting aspersions and insults", yet freely throw such attacks at me without addressing a thing I have said, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there’s increasing evidence that Zane Stein meets WP:CREATIVE/ WP:AUTHOR, the argument has dramatically switched onto the ridiculous notion that astrology is not legitimate anyway and therefore he cannot be considered an author or a creative professional or indeed under any WP Notability criteria. Astrology may not be legitimate in some editor’s eyes and this fixation has prompted their personal crusade to cleanse Wikipedia of this unlawful and illegitimate practice. This imaginative angle is symptomatic of what appears to be a legal interpretation of rules to delete this biography. Kooky2 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender was the first to claim that Zane meets WP:AUTHOR. I reject this argument as not being met. Naturally I avoided countering arguments that were not made per WP:BEANS prior to Softlavender making them (specifically you indicated that WP:AUTHOR was not met earlier). Please desist from comments directed personally at me, particularly considering of recent warnings. I highlight the sentence "ridiculous notion that astrology is not legitimate", for the closing admin to reflect on. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's keep it on topic. Astrology may have been illegal under Stalin etc and it may be pseudoscience, but as far as I know, astrology is not unlawful in western democracies - otherwise an awful lot of people would be breaking the law. Perhaps you need another reason to justify why an astrologer cannot be considered an author or a creative professional or fall under any notability criteria. Also, I was not aware that I had "indicated that WP:AUTHOR was not met earlier". I admit that I was in some doubt about the merits of this article initially. As you know, WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE are the same guideline which includes authors and other creative professionals. Kooky2 (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite simple, the reasons Softlavender were giving were not about satisfying WP:AUTHOR for his books, but for his work as an astrologer. If he is notable not as an author, but an astrologer there should be independent secondary sources to satisfy that, which there aren't. If you want to claim WP:AUTHOR you need to have best sellers and famous awards (awards that we have heard of, astrologers giving each other awards don't add up to much). IRWolfie- (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotation I have a number of quotes in various books that may be relevant. Here is one from The Continuing Discovery of Chiron by Erminie Huntress Lantero, published 1983 by Samuel Weiser, inc. of York Beach, Maine. ISBN 0-87728-549-7: page 4,
"On first hearing of the new planet, astrologer Zane B Stein, then of Warminster, PA, understood quite well what needed to be done; and he was unwilling to wait for publication of the astronomer's complete and definitive ephemeris, which might take awhile. So he wrote to Dr. Brian G. Marsden, Director of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory at Cambridge, MA, who was to compute Chiron's orbit and prepare an astronomical ephemeris for world-wide use. Stein requested his help in regard to advance information, and wrote to discoverer Kowal as well. After a few months of cooperative correspondence between Dr. Marsden and himself, Stein was given an advance ephemeris of printed-out ten-day positons in right ascension/declination."
The author then talks about Stein forming of a "Chiron Committee" with two other astrologers and a computer programmer, and finishes up with "but Stein was considered the "Key member" since it was he who made the first formal contact with the astronomers." ZaneStein (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reference, Zane. Kooky2 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The dates on the letters and the dates of that book don't add up. The book is not under a reliable imprint (Weiser Antiquarian Books), and is written by an astrologer, this does not show notability in the greater world per previous reasons. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Lantero is an independent, reliable, secondary source that further confirms Zane's role as a pioneer in his field. I have three questions: 1) Please clarify what you mean by the "dates on the letters and the dates of that book don't add up". 2) Can you cite the guidelines that makes the publisher, Samuel Weiser Publishing founded in 1956 an unreliable imprint and 3) the guideline where it states that WP:AUTHORs must be bestsellers? Kooky2 (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on YOU to prove that the source is reliable. By default, it's not.
I could find no evidence on their website [[6]] that they take editorial responsible for the factual content of the books they publish, that they conduct any sort of fact-checking as serious journalistic editors do or any sort of editorial or peer review as serious scholarly publishers do. Nor could I find any evidence that they have a reputation for factchecking and accuracy outside of the fringe community.
As for Lantero, there's ZERO about her in independent reliable sources. According to her Amazon ranking, she's very far from a best-sellar. Outside the fringe community, she's probably been noticed even less than Stein has. As zero calling another zero a "significant author" does exactly zero to establish notablility.
Until you provide evidence of substantial and serious coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources that Stein is not a complete zero, he meets exactly zero of the criteria of any of our notablity guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are now more than enough reliable, independent secondary sources that confirm that Stein qualifies under WP:CREATIVE as a creative professional and author. Please answer my questions with reference to specific guidelines. Kooky2 (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' as per Kooky2. This discussion does seem to have wandered into a real lack of civility all round which isn't helpful for either side, though. StuartDouglas (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PERNOM. Can you summarise what your reason for the keep is, showing reliable sources where applicable. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that policy thanks, but it's a guideline only and besides I find Kooky2's notability arguments to be comprehensive. Astrology is absolute bunk imo, but the argument against this person seems to be based on arguing that that matters in terms of notability. Which - again imo - is nonsense. YMMV. StuartDouglas (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject has not been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (required by WP:BASIC), or "received a well-known and significant award or honor" (WP:ANYBIO—emphasis mine). Miniapolis 15:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Dominus and Miniapolis. Appears to be a minor astrologer. II | (t - c) 17:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →AzaToth 22:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Whoof -- there are certainly people who are very powerfully invested in interpreting Wikipedia notability guidelines to squeeze this fellow through. For all the repeated -- and oft-shrill -- exhortations to read WP:AUTHOR, I question whether the editors did themselves. For one thing, they are ignoring a critical element of notability policy: that all such notability guidelines are subordinate to the GNG -- meeting their criteria is considered (officially) to presumptively pass the GNG. The entire "Additional Criteria" section holds that "meeting one or more [of the subordinate criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

    Beyond that, though, editors such as Softlavender and Kooky2 repeatedly maintain that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR, but proffer no evidence from reliable, credible sources for the same beyond their own unsupported assertions. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Ravenswing 06:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing, could you be more specific regarding failure to meet WP:GNG with reference to three sources: Kempton-Smith, Professor Lewis and Dr Lantero and which particular guidelines do they fail to meet? Kooky2 (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the Astrologer Debbi Kempton Smith's "Secrets from a Stargazer's Notebook: Making Astrology Work for You"? Astrologer James R. Lewis's astrology book? etc, these are all published in-universe by unreliable publishers. The guideline they fail is WP:RS/Wikipedia:FRINGE#Reliable_sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This guideline in WP:Fringe Theories refers to the notability of fringe theories to demonstrate whether an idea is sufficiently notable and not to basic biographical information, which does not require peer reviewed, University Press or equivalent sources. In this context Bantam Books (part of Random House), Visible Ink Press publisher of Lewis' Encyclopedia and Weisers are reliable publishers. Kooky2 (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of those publishers take editorial responsibility for the content of these books, and none of them carry out any form of academic review or journalistic fact-checking. They simply publish these books for entertainment purposes only. They are as reliable as comic books. No more. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite policy. Kooky2 (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS qualifies this with "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." In my view, you are setting the bar too high for the context: the publishers, the authors, the content and the statements being made. Kooky2 (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That bar has pretty much been set, by consensus, for a long time now. As far as your interpretation of WP:Fringe theories goes, you seem to have left this out of your calculations: "Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories ... is strongly discouraged." You're free to disagree, of course ... as it seems you've done, in exhaustive, tl;dr length. At this point, I'm minded of WP:KEEPCONCISE. You've stated your case, and now it's time for others to state theirs. Ravenswing 16:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't like to weigh in on AfDs to vote delete as an inclusionist, but this AfD seems to have a gotten a bit off track. The subject does not meet WP:GNG, its not even a borderline case in my opinion.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet the general notability guidelines, nor the ones for authors. It is completely irrelevant what the Amazon sales rankings are as we do not use them to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the merits - I'm not convinced that the subject meets the GNG. That said, it might be a case of NOTYET as opposed to NOTEVER. Usual Caveats apply. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:49, 1 August 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zane_B._Stein&oldid=1068985452"