Talk:Nevill Drury

Notability

Questioning this author's notability is ridiculous. He is the best known and best selling author on shamanism after Michael Harner and Carlos Castaneda; perhaps over Harner at this point. Has Pigman done a google search on him? Has he looked at the long list of books published by major publishers? Rosencomet (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so all you need to do is provide more evidence of that in the article (See the link in the notability template)--Bsnowball (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm new to editing, but I've had some coaching so I hope I'm doing this right. I started here because I can't even believe anyone is questioning Nevill Drury's notability. I've been reading his books for many years, and I'm very much into shamanism, and I know of no author quoted more often in the field, from R. J. Stewart to Terence McKenna. I tried to find more bios on him, but his books are so prevalent that the first 200 hits were about them rather than him, except for publisher's bios that added little additional data. I just don't understand why the data already in this article would be insufficient to ANYONE to establish notability. There are over fifty books listed in the bibliography (though a few may be re-issues of books already listed under a prior name), and he's been a prominent author in his field at least since the seventies, when he co-wrote Search for Abraxas with Colin Wilson, and Path of the Chameleon. (The first book of his that really grabbed me was Don Juan, Mescalito & Modern Magic, the first analysis of the Castenada books I know of, which separated the more valuable material from the novelization and applied it to the existing body of old and new knowledge of shamanism, and to the emerging shamanic currents in the culture of the psychedelic movement.) JuliusAaron (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the notability tag for the moment but I'd like to reiterate what Bsnowball said: As the article stands now, there is little in the way of good verifiable sources showing his notability beyond some interviews with ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp, I believe). Please look carefully at Wikipedia:Notability (people), particularly the sections on basic criteria and for authors. Rosencomet, unless you can find sources for "He is the best known and best selling author on shamanism after Michael Harner and Carlos Castaneda", this is, at best, WP:OR. While the number of books published is an indication of notability, it is not by any means definitive. A Google News search on him turned up some stories and reviews but remarkably little of substance. Cheers, Pigman☿ 17:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I am SO sick of you saying that something I said on a TALK page needs to be sourced not to be original research or whatever else you come up with. If and when I try to put such a comment in the article, you can make such claims. Until then, stop it. You know better.

And by what stretch of the imagination can over forty books published by notable presses (some as major as Carroll & Graf, Simon & Schuster, and Harper & Row) NOT be definitive proof of notability for an author? Can you name ANY more notable authors in the field of Shamanism? Any more prolific authors on Australian art?

You are in the middle of a spree of nominations for deletion of articles I've written, and it has nothing to do with notability in my opinion. It has everything to do with your treatment of me, which has been consistently poor, at least bordering on stalking and harassment. Nor has it anything to do with Starwood or spam; Sally Morningstar, Chas S. Clifton, Nevill Drury, Pamela J. Ball, Morwyn and Vivianne Crowley are all authors who have never been to Starwood or WinterStar, nor do their articles have links to anything related to ACE. Rosencomet (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Drury is a notable author on the occult and magic, and well-known in occult circles. The problem might be that the occult and groups that practice occultism or read occult books are considered a subculture or ghettoized by mainstream religions. Some of Drury's books in their original editions would qualify as vanity press offerings because of the small print-runs, limited publicity and small publishing houses. There is no objective criterion for being "notable" so the best you can do is to ask people involved in a specific field or sphere, and by this criterion Drury is as important as Austin Osman Spare or Eliaphas[sic] Levi. "Verifiable sources" does not mean internet links that are convenient for you to check, it means hardcopy published sources. In the case of occult literature, this is a difficult assignment for several reasons: a lot of material is published in semi-underground journals, library collections of occult books are most liable to theft (ask a librarian for confirmation of that). That Colin Wilson as a co-author with Drury on the re-issue of Abraxas alone makes Drury notable, or notable enough. I find Pigman's argument off-base and Bsnowball's suggestion lazy on his/her part at best. Do it yourelf[sic], Bsnowball.Hypatea (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wandering in

So I just wandered into this page on Mr. Drury. I looked it over. I looked at the references section. And I said, "Hmmm... I wonder if this guy is really notable?" Then I did a Google search. The first four things I got were this very article, Mr. Drury's personal web site, an obituary published on that same site, and his personal Facebook page. To me, these are immediate flags for not actually being notable.

I looked over the references in some more detail. Yes, he has published many books. This does not confer notability. His work has to be discussed in published format by OTHER PEOPLE for him to have a viable claim of notability— not mere evidence of his own productivity (never mind that long bibliographic lists are completely unnecessary unless you are desperately trying to bolster a dubious claim of notability... which smells to me like more evidence of its absence, once again). Responding to another person's doubts about the notability of this person with hyperbolic incredulity ("I can't believe you are even thinking of doubting his obvious notability! It's so obvious!") is the third thing that makes me doubt his notability. Because if it were so obvious, I wouldn't be having multiple personal instances of, "Hey, I am not sure this guy is notable." If he is notable, there should be more evidence of it than a list of his own publications and links to his home page. There should be multiple reliable third party references in secondary sources. Which, by the way, there as yet does not seem to be. And anyone who responds to this expression of doubt with histrionics will need to take that emotional outrage and slowly breathe while saying, "You seem to be right. The article IS rather scant on evidence of his notability. I will see if I can perhaps change that by finding some reliable sources to include here. And if I cannot, I will be completely understanding if other editors feel the article should be deleted." Because THAT is the correct response. That is the only correct response. Do not judge the intentions of other editors or call their expressions of doubt ridiculous and unfounded. You can either do the work of providing actual evidence his notability, or you can be more gracious about other editors expressing their concerns about it. Yes? KDS4444^Talk 09:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Is Drury notable? Of course. Is the article a little thin on showing this? That's a fair point, it could use some sources that show "this is a guy who people in these circles listen to". I'm short on time at the moment but a few minutes with DuckDuckGo finds these, I'd try to work them in to flesh out the article: http://ethandoylewhite.blogspot.com/2013/02/an-interview-with-dr-nevill-drury.html , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4PQDeY5h0E , http://occultofpersonality.net/dr-nevill-drury/ , http://wildhunt.org/2013/10/nevill-drury-1947-2013.html , http://www.patheos.com/blogs/sermonsfromthemound/2013/07/pathways-in-modern-western-magic-review/ TomSwiss (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Drury was notable in the pre-internet age, on the printed page, in American, Australian and German circles, mainly occult circles. He is roughly of the same stature as Eliaphas Levi, or the "traditionalist" Rene Guenon, in terms of notability, imho. Translation and publication of his work is the mark of his notability, the traditional yardstick for measuring the worth of an author in the pre-www era. Hypatea (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nevill Drury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110215447/http://www.dtrdi.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/v3/guis/templates/content/gui_cue_cntnhtml.cfm?id=52819 to http://www.dtrdi.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/v3/guis/templates/content/gui_cue_cntnhtml.cfm?id=52819

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)