Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hail Satan

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 keep. I can't see a procedural issue here, either. Notifying relevant wikiprojects only amounts to inappropriate canvassing if the projects' participants must be reasonably expected to overwhelmingly express one opinion or the other (which I think has not been shown here), if at all.  Sandstein  17:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hail Satan

Hail Satan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article with an original research intro about a phrase with no evidence of notability. All the refs are totally trivial mentions in the media or from dubious sources. Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This article has been referenced to hell. Also well known from popular movies like The Omen. DollyD (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the question here is not how many references there are, but whether the references cover the subject substantially. -Samuel Tan 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because some churches are vandalized with attacks that include scrawling "Hail Satan!" on the wall does not mean the phrase is notable. Wikipedia isn't here to promote garbage scribbled by vandals. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete unless it can be shown that there is significant coverage in sources: the subject of the sources cited is not the phrase "Hail Satan", but rather other things like hip hop, a paranormal event, and "corrupting" music. Per WP:N, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. -Samuel Tan 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Per the nominator's comments, I encourage editors to carefully review the article and actually open and read the links before opining whether to keep or delete. This doesn't seem like one of those AfD discussions where one can judge up the validity of the objections with a quick glance. - House of Scandal (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Blow me, have you seen how much work I've put into this article, and the over twenty inline citations, and the fact that I nommed it for WP:DYK and they said they were happy to go ahead with it if I formatted the refs using the cite templates they asked for- which I now have? [1] google news, google books [2] and google scholar [3] show plenty of WP:RS, of which the article has many. Sticky Parkin 16:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• WARNING - The comment "blow me" is not civil and is not appropriate for this conversation nor for any conversation on Wikipedia. If that comment was directed at me it's particularly misguided as I haven’t opined to delete your article and am more likely to opine that it should be kept. In any case, a comment such as yours is far more likely to move “undecided voters” against you than it is likely to draw them to your side. When you insult all of us with a comment like that, the chances that anyone will care "how much work (you've) put into this article" are diminished significantly. - House of Scandal (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Prove it- you will not be able to as you are picking at something that isn't there and reading meanings that are not meant. It is simply an expression indicating surprise in the UK where I am, not any other connotation. I'm female lol if you're thinking it has some other meaning. Google is your friend for finding it's use to express surprise. [4] He uses it in the sixth paragraph down.Sticky Parkin 19:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The phrase was imprudent, because of the possible misinterpretation, but not actually uncivil. For starters, it wasn't directed at anyone, it was, on it's face, a general comment meaning exactly what Sticky claimed, not, apparently, a response to HouseOfScandal, "Well, blow me down," an expression of surprise. I've got a kids video of an Australian group singing that with the lead singer being blown down by the whole group, who puff at him, several times a minute. I can understand the misinterpretation, it kinda shocked me too when I first saw it, because I'm American, where, indeed, those words have quite a different meaning, not for us to mention here, except to say, yes, a woman wouldn't say that. However, it took only a moment to recover the intended meaning. Now, if someone has voted to keep or delete because of that remark, that would be spectacularly wrong. We do not keep or delete articles because of the identity, race, civility, or birth sign of an involved editor. We keep them or delete them based on the content and its notability. Point to remember. --Abd (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As another British Wikipedian here, I have to concur with the above. "Blow me" is not offensive in the slightest. It's short-hand for "blow me down", as in being so surprised it nearly knocked you over. Here, have a look: [5]. Anyway, we're here to debate the AfD nomination, not discuss the relative interpretations of various idioms... Coldmachine^Talk 19:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Coldmachine, for speaking on this point. I'll accept this explanation in good faith as that is what a good Wikipedian does. I agree that we're not here to discuss idioms, but civility is key to many Wikipedia processes, AfD debates included. Accordingly, I don't appreciate Sticky Parkin's uncivil response beginning "prove it" as Sticky Parkin is obviously familiar with the better-known, international use of this phrase and might have understood my interpretation to be predictable. Rather, Sticky Parkin, you've taken a new opportunity to build a sympathetic relationship with a fellow editor and have instead worked towards the opposite result. C’mon. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Believe it or not, "prove it" is a British idiom that is short hand for "You have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt I might have." Wait. No it isn't. Mandsford (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll chip in here as well - I'd never have even considered any 'imprudent" definition of the "blow me" in Sticky Parkin's comment. It was quite clear to me that she intended it to be used in the far more common sense of astonishment, and I was frankly amazed that anyone would think it otherwise. Having said that, it seems that the usual sense of the term may be little-known in the US - something of which I was unaware - and I assume that is where HouseofScandal may be from. (BTW, such things work both ways, I was more than slightly shocked to see we have an article called "Float Your Fanny Down the Ganny", which I would have regarded as a highly inappropriate title). I will note that HoS is correct that SP's response to the original complaint was less than wise, however - an explanation would have been frar more appropriate than a challenge. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, while I appreciate HoS's intent, his interpretation did not even occur to me, and I wasn't the least bit offended as I interpreted it as an abbreviation of the UK expression "blow me down" (ie knock me down with a feather etc). I didn't comment previously however as I thought it best to leave SP to provide her own explanation. Gatoclass (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• As to the sources- the fact that there are hundreds of mentions of the phrase in WP:RS is enough for an article about a phrase and it's use, multiple small sources can count when of course no-one will have discussed the phrase in depth. Every fact I say in the article I think has a cite- I really don't think there's WP:OR and if there is that's grounds for improvement, not deletion. We have a whole category or more of articles about phrases- . Sticky Parkin 16:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC) 'All' the references are WP:RS, in books with isbns, or well known newspapers. So the nom is not actually correct about any of the sources being dubious. Sticky Parkin 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• As Samuel Tan said, lots of passing references in reliable sources do not add up to notability. You can do a google search on practically any short phrase and come up with lots of references. Coverage has to be substantial and non-trivial, that's what the issue is here. Gatoclass (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict- was clarifying- Multiple mentions has counted in many AfDs. We have a whole category or more of articles about phrases- [6]. Do you think most of these phrases have many whole articles written solely about them? Don't you think this article fits in here- I think it looks and reads like an encyclopedia article about a phrase, of which we have many. Sticky Parkin 16:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep This phrase has permeated popular culture, film, tv, music. That alone would make it deserving of a page. The article is well written and well refed. It may appear trivial to some (Hail Satan), but it's prominence in popular culture as mentioned gets my vote for a keep. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• The phrase "Praise Jesus" gets four times as many google hits as "Hail Satan". Does that mean we need an article on that too? I hardly think so. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Far out! Above, Gatoclass refers to WP:Other stuff exists as a rejected argument. But here he relies on the quite analogous WP:Other stuff does not exist, which obviously needs to be created and redirected to WP:Other stuff exists, because it's the same argument, explicitly covered in that same essay. Perhaps we should create the article on Praise Jesus. Or not. It's basically irrelevant, even if, say, Praise Jesus was deleted, we don't follow precedent like that, for very good reason. --Abd (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I created the redirect. I'll leave Praise Jesus to someone who's got the time and inclination. I'd recommend waiting for this AfD to close, though! Even though precedent isn't binding, it can be a clue. --Abd (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You might also note that wp:Other stuff exists states in the intro that "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". So whether the "other stuff exists/does not exist" argument is valid is dependent on the validity of the comparison, and just because there may be some valid phrase articles does not mean that every article about a phrase must therefore be valid. Gatoclass (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The phrase "Hail Satan" has been used for more than 190 years and was cited by the Supreme Court of California in justifying court room shackling of American serial killer Richard Ramirez. I think it difficult to accept that no additional substantial and non-trivial exists for this term, particularly in view of the numerous Wikpiedia articles that link to Hail Satan. There is a five day window for new articles to appear on the Main Page through Did You Know and this request to delete the article was listed on day five of that five day window. Suntag (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of how this AFD turns out, I will be recommending against the promotion of this article at DYK. As for "the numerous articles that link to Hail Satan", you might have mentioned that you yourself added these links five minutes ago. And people get shackled and gagged in court for all sorts of obscenities and bad behaviour. Gatoclass (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• (responding to Suntag) Creating an article for DYK submission only to have it nominated for deletion is a frustrating situation I have experienced personally. However, an article may be so nominated at any time, day five or not. For several days, no one objected to the article. Then, someone scrutinized it, and felt deletion was appropriate. Whether the article is deleted or kept, the decision to nominate it for deletion seems to have been done in good faith. The DYK rules are actually guidelines. If this article does not get deleted, I would have advocated its late arrival on the front page in consideration of the situation. However, after the editor's completely uncivil comment above, I'll choose not to. - House of Scandal (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hi HouseOfScandal. I didn't create the article, I just spent a lot of time fixing the cites. Then I saw it was nominated for deletion, thought that I may have wasted a lot of my time fixing the cites, and then added some more info to the article in hopes of having the article kept and not having wasted my time. I agree that the nomination was done in good faith. Since there was a comma after the term rather than a period or exclamation point, I assumed that she was using the term "blow me" as in blow me down or shiver my timbers, which Popeye used to say. I would really be bummed if I spent such effort on an article that resulted in bad behaviour. Suntag (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Gatoclass. I did not add the links five minutes ago. I linked the existing "Hail Satan" text in the other articles around 19:00, 14 August 2008, which was before this deletion nomination and about twenty one hour before my 16:31, 15 August 2008 post above. I still think that there is a strong likelyhood that additional substantial and non-trivial material exists for this term. Given the length the term has been in use and where and how it has been use, I do not think that there is a deletion basis to say that this term has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Suntag (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just to recapitulate - unless I've missed something, there is virtually no discussion of the term itself in any of the sources listed in the article. The only exceptions are one article where an actress makes the extraordinary claim that some of her actor friends blame their divorce on saying "Hail Satan" in a movie script (!), and another passing mention in what is clearly a piece of comedy writing in which the author does a tongue-in-cheek analysis of alleged musician's signals. This is not in my opinion remotely enough to justify the existence of the article. Gatoclass (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gatoglass is claiming articles are self-published when they're published by the University of Missouri! [7] And despite his claim above every source I've included says something about hail satan, and this article I would say discusses it, [8] as he uses it and the sign which he considers aligned to the phrase as the main example for his argument about what's happening to culture. Sticky Parkin 19:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sticky. You might not be aware of this, but phrases like "Gatoglass is claiming", and "despite his claim" focus the attention away from your arguments and onto Gatoglass. One way to avoid this is to not use the person's name as part of the arguments in your reply. Something like

"The articles are not self-published when they're published by the University of Missouri! [9]. Every source included in the article says something about hail satan. The sfweekly.com article[10] does discuss the term itself and the sign which the sfweekly author considers aligned to the phrase as the main example for his argument about what's happening to culture."

isn't so personal. Suntag (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I removed one ambiguously worded claim from a self-published source, which claimed or implied that "Hail Satan" is a commonly retrieved memory from victims of ritual abuse. The sentence that followed it, which stated that there is no clear evidence for ritual abuse - and which was reliably sourced - thereby became redundant, so it was appropriate to delete that too. Gatoclass (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: AfD is not for cleanup. WP:DELETE states that "disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page...deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." If the lead-in needs fixing, then fix it. And, per WP:N, "if it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Coldmachine^Talk 19:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) See the last encyclopedia dramatica AfD for one where numerous sources was decided to counterweigh any lack of depth. (though the article is controversial, I think the argument can and probably has held for other articles. I would say a phrase mentioned since at least 1811 is inherently notable. Sticky Parkin 19:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. After carefully scrutinizing the currently cited references I have to conclude that sufficient notability and verifiability to the article's content can not be established. If better sources are found I will change my vote to keep. This is not an issue of cleanup but an issue of notability and verification. I will again echo the comment made above that a decision in this case can not be made by simply eyeballing the article. One needs to actually go the cited references and read those.Nrswanson (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has some problems, but it seems to have enough sourcing to properly survive, even if possibly unsourced stuff is taken out. --Abd (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has a few problems, but it has more than enough sourcing to make something useful for it. In the case of an incredibly large number of sources like this, the depth of the sources shouldn't be as important as it would be elsewhere; instead, we should be concentrating on the fact that it is so widely used and how we can elaborate on that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• keep (don't think I actually "voted yet".) I ask everyone who wasn't happy with the lead or anything to take another look. Some parts of the article may not be perfect (this is a wiki, anyone who thinks something can improve it.) But I just did a lot of work on the lead, which I hope you will like a little more. At the moment, though some may no doubt come and go, there are 39 cites in the article.:) Sticky Parkin 14:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, and unfortunately, the article is looking more and more like an example of WP:SYNTH. Gatoclass (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So WP:FIXIT, which I'm sure used to be a link:) Sticky Parkin 16:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I honestly can't see how this is WP:SYNTH, there's now a reference for practically every sentence. Of course when writing, one sentence is placed next to another, and in wikipedia articles sentences on a similar theme are placed in a similar section or order. I challenge you to make a piece of writing or article which doesn't put sentences next to each other, unless it is cut-up, and even then it's usually arranged. As to the depth of sources, we have many articles about phrases, [11] pay to play, Beam me up, Scotty, Plastic Paddy, art for art's sake, - and these aren't even including the more obscure ones. My argument is not that "other stuff exists", but that this is an acceptable type or subject for an article, of which we have dozens. This reminds me of the AfD for Macaroni soup where people were saying the only sources to be found were recipes. But it turned into an article about a food which is very similar to hundreds of others, in fact more thoroughly sourced. Sticky Parkin 01:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is a very well-known phrase and I hear it all the time. It is certainly worthy of an article. ðarkuncoll 19:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Article meets WP:RS. A google search would show that. Also, we might be able to say keep via WP:SNOW. Undeath (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Sort-of-weak keep as per discussion above. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 04:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Notification of this debate has been included in the Religion/Left Hand Path work group talk page. --Suntag (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: Notification of this debate has been included in the Black Metal talk page.--Suntag (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Votestacking is charged

• Votestacking - I have discovered that Sticky Parkin has been engaged in votestacking, here and here, which is completely inappropriate. Had I for example canvassed some Christian or evangelical groups, this vote might be looking very different. It's very disappointing that someone would resort to this sort of tactic, and I feel obliged to add this information to the record. Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Utterly unacceptable. This is completely blatant vote stacking and canvassing and shows utter contempt. --mboverload@ 07:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's actually polite and perfectly acceptable to notify other users of an ongoing AfD nomination and discussion should the article fall within the editing interests of those individuals: if a university article was nominated for deletion I would hope that WikiProject Universities would be duly notified as well. The notification was not loaded with inciting people to come and vote a specific way so it does not constitute canvassing. Likewise, you cannot simply claim, without providing proof of such a serious accusation, that all editors who work within WikiProject Left Hand Path are, in fact, Satanists or pro-Satan. Besides, all of this is moot since there's no such thing as voting. Admins are perfectly within their rights to close AfD nominations without consideration for the number of keep and delete !votes based on whether the article fails to meet, or in fact does meet, the content policies cited as the reason for the nomination. I suggest you concentrate on presenting a solid and valid case for deletion, if that is your view, rather than mudslinging against fellow editors which simply makes it look as if you are resorting to such tactics in response to an opposing consensus with which you are unhappy. Coldmachine^Talk 09:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to believe anything you choose, but I think few people will concur with your claim that notifying "Left Hand Path" and "Black Metal" does not represent a transparent attempt to stack the vote here. And I'll thank you not to characterize my right to alert users about this issue as "mudslinging". That is quite clearly a personal attack on your part. Gatoclass (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling you might cry 'personal attack' however you'll note that I was commenting on your behaviour, not you and there is a difference. As I say, there's no such thing as voting so it's irrelevant as to whether 'votestacking' happens: an impartial admin will arrive at the AfD and make a judgement based on the article, and application of the content policies. If your case for deletion has merit then the article will be deleted but as I say, I think you will find that AfD is not for cleanup. Coldmachine^Talk 12:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I cried personal attack because that is precisely what it was. "Mudslinging" is defined in the dictionary as "the practice of making unscrupulous, malicious attacks against an opponent". When you accuse someone of unscrupulousness or malice, you are attacking their character not their behaviour. Please try to refrain from such attacks in future. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My remarks were not a personal attack, they were reflecting on your tactics/behaviour on this page, not you, which is entirely fine as WP:NPA states: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks". You are clouding the purpose of this discussion by raising these sorts of allegations and trying to distract editors from the real issues is only disruptive. So, as WP:BAIT recommends, this is my last remark on this AfD; the last word is all yours. Coldmachine^Talk 16:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

when made without involving their personal character - precisely. And I just explained to you why mudslinging is by definition an accusation that impugns character. But apparently you weren't paying attention. I'm afraid I can't do anything about that. But thank you for making that your final statement, as I agree a continuation of the discussion from this point would be nothing but a distraction. Gatoclass (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

!!!!I notified, in a neutral way, two wikiprojects that would be interested in the AfD due to them having particular interest in some of the subject areas it covers. As you know, people involved in a wikiproject are not always fans of that subject for it to stack an AfD, but they are concerned with related articles.Sticky Parkin 13:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS explicitly states that it is unacceptable to selectively canvas to a partisan audience, which is precisely what you did. The only two groups you canvassed were those most likely to include users with a favourable attitude to articles about Satanism or "Black Metal" subculture. In no way can this be described as an acceptable form of canvassing.

As I said, I am very disappointed you did this, because up until that point I had assumed I was dealing with another good faith user with whom I was simply having an honest difference of opinion, and now I find myself questioning that judgement. At the very least, this was poor judgement on your part, and something you would be advised not to repeat in future. As things stand, the vote here has now been corrupted, and there appears to be no way to mend that state of affairs. Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No that's not what I did, WP:CANVAS says it's fine to notify in a neutral way. Unlike what you suggest the feelings of people in the wikiprojects are not a foregone conclusion, nor am I involved in the wikiprojects to particularly be sure of who is there or which way they would go with this AfD, except that they might know about the subject matter or be interested, and people in AfDs routinely notify related wikiprojects. Are people in Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch all paedophiles? I am disappointed that you would choose to interpret my good faith behaviour, as seen on thousands of other AfDs, in this way, and fail to WP:AGF or treat it like every other AfD where wikiprojects are notified. Sticky Parkin 14:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

the feelings of people in the wikiprojects are not a foregone conclusion.

No, but one may make an intelligent guess as to how a particular group is likely to vote. Obviously though I can't read your mind, perhaps you really did think these notifications were appropriate, but if so then I think you have misconstrued the policy. Gatoclass (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gatoclass. The instructions for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says "Also consider notifying WikiProjects listed on the discussion page," which it appears Sticky Parkin did. Step II of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion instructions says "Consider adding an appropriate deletion sorting template to the nomination." I added a note above about the notifications. Wikipedia:Canvassing says "Editors who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion, might also place such neutrally-worded notices on the talk pages of a WikiProject." -- Suntag (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC) OK, I thought more about your point. Perhaps the deletion notifications should be limited to only those WikiProjects that can be reasonably listed on the article talk page. Right now, only WikiProject Languages is listed on Talk:Hail Satan. Groups likely to hail Satan isn't the topic. It is the phrase "Hail Satan", which seem to be a notability language issue. Suntag (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable, and in fact encouraged, to notify wikiprojects and editors who are regular contributors of an article when it is at AfD. This isn't canvassing; this is posted in a neutral way to a related venue that has a high prob ability of containing users who are going to be interested in the subject. You might think most users are going to disagree with this practice, but the fact is otherwise--most people consider it polite and acceptable to do what he did, and simply because you don't like the idea of having more eyes on it who are familiar with the subject doesn't mean they aren't entitled to a notification of an ongoing debate. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear all, see my comment below- I have removed my request to related wikiprojects, for no other reason than some people's (IMHO inncorrect) interpretation of it, as such notification being routine. But I don't need the hellish torment of another AfD and another 5 days all over again:) Sticky Parkin 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This AfD looks like a Christian vs. Satanist battle at first glance, but when you really look at it, there's nothing really encyclopedia-notable about this phrase. I feel bad about dumping all the work that's been put into the article, but I don't want to see an article in Wikipedia for every phrase in pop culture either. How could we justify deleting Hail <insert deity or anti-deity of choice> if we keep this? --JaGa^talk 07:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Hail (insert deity here)" will usually have been mentioned less in WP:RS, (for instance "Hail Diana" is only mentioned eight times in news stories [12] in contrast to Hail Satan [13] -and some of the Diana ones are just using it about Lady Diana Spencer.) There are several uses of the phrase Hail Satan, not just a straightforward one, such as in metal, film, occult, humourous usage, and its unfortunate connection with crime, the phrase is used enough times with enough different meanings to warrant an article. Sticky Parkin 13:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There was no votestacking. He basically spread the word about this afd. He brought it to the black metal wikiproject where I saw it. It did not look like a way to stack any type of votes. Anyway, just think of what happens with an article if flagged for rescue. That's a basic vote stack in itself. Undeath (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Well sourced, notable and evidence provided for it's notability. Sticky Parkin did in no way "stack votes", her mention of the AfD was done in a neutral way, and no policies were at all broken in what she did. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep - but only if the article is cleaned up and its obvious POV is negated. Also, this AfD should be closed out and a new one started. Failing that, WikiProjects from the opposite point of view should be notified to counter the obvious votestacking. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not votestacking to notify related wikiprojects. If you think there is a POV then WP:FIXIT, as User:Coldmachine says, AfD is not for cleanup.I'd be interested what you consider to be POV, as half the article is concerned with how the phrase is considered evil, naff, mockworthy or related to crime.:) But that's not part of the AfD, I shall be chatting to you about it on your talk page. If people turn up voting for reasons of religious POV, I would hope the closing admin would consider the arguments rather than numbers as is the policy, as the subject is clearly WP:V and in hundreds of sources, as others have said.Sticky Parkin 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ed Fitzgerald's proposal above: Wikiprojects related to whatever the opposite of view is in this case should also be alerted to this discussion. I'm making popcorn if anyone wants some... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why as I have removed my comment, that is unnecessary. To be fair, if it was done it should only be up for one day, as mine was. Probably the fairest is for editors without a particular religious bias to be the ones to judge, as is happening at the moment. Anyway my "canvassing" lol has not led to any different outcome.Sticky Parkin 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of your comment now is a fay late and a dollar short, since clearly several commenters here came because of your canvassing comments. We need to start over, here, you've poisoned the well for this AfD to be considered to be definitive. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Reading this page is very depressing. It seems some editors, who should know better, are involved in nothing more than a personal 'mud slinging' campaign, that is verging on the ridiculous. Nothing to do with the 'vote' going against them of course. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If an article is flagged for rescue, the people in the article rescue squad act accordingly. That could be considered vote stacking by the way you guys are terming it. Sticky Parkin just notified relevant wikiprojects, which is done on many AfDs. For example, you see at the bottom of a lot of AfDs, a message that says "This article has been included in (insert type of deletion list here)" That is the same thing that Parkin did. It was not vote stacking. Undeath (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

He notified only relevant Wikiprojects that were likely to vote the way he supports while totally ignoring other projects which would be likely to vote the other way. That's canvassing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is in no way canvassing. For example, if a band is going to be deleted, the wikiproject is notified. If an airport is going to be deleted, the wikiproject is notified. That is not canvassing. He didn't say "Come and VOTE here to KEEP this article." He just notified us of it which is in no way canvassing. Undeath (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm not explaining my point well. If a film is to be deleted, notifying WikiProject Film is perfectly reasonable because the project covers all films, so if SP had notified WikiProject Religion, or WikiProject Colloquialisms, or WikiProject Expressions Beginning with Hail, assuming such projects existed, there would be no problem. But because he notified WikiProject Religion/Left Hand Path work group (a specific sub-group of the Religion project, not the entire project) and WikiProject Black Metal, groups which were significantly more likely to have members who would support his position, his action is clearly canvassing. Moreover, his post to the Black Metal group pandered to them by using language designed to be attractive to them, rather than neutral language.

SP and his supporters may honestly believe that he did nothing wrong, but that's not the case, and the AfD is thereby tainted. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Vote stacking is directly asking an editor, or a project, to do a specific thing. This was not done. The messages left only basically said, hey, there is something you might want to take a look at if you have the time. I've nominated airports for deletion before and saw editors, even admins, notify WP:AIRPORTS about it. It's not stacking unless it is stated that a vote is wanted for a specific outcome. Undeath (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the case, votestacking does not require the editor to try to persuade anyone. According to WP:CANVAS:i

Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.

That is precisely what happened here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That also never says that an editor must notify opposing groups. Anyway, who would be opposed to Hail Satan besides the christians? And who really is prone to like the saying anyway. The left hand path is not all satanic. Some are, some are thelemic, some are atheist etc... Same with the black metal wikiproject. The edits and notifications were in good faith. And, if it makes you feel better, I'd happily tell the christian groups about this one.Undeath (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Undeath (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. You posted a notice on WikiProject Religion, but the idea was to post notices on projects that were likely to have the opposite view from the ones that SP posted to. In light of that, I've put notices on WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Christian Music and WikiProject Christian Metal. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And in turn you have engaged in vote stacking. Sticky posted on two areas. You have now made it unbalanced. Anyway, it's not going to make a difference. Even if a bunch of christians tally up delete comments, they will all have to provide valid reasons why. Undeath (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, you have convinced me completely. If what SP did was OK, what I did was OK. Cheers. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think you did anything wrong, either. However, I do think that a lot of people here need to get off this idea of "opposing" factions; we're here to write an encyclopedia of everything (notable). That includes things that some people might enjoy a great deal, and that others find highly offensive. However, the goal isn't to exclude one or the other. The goal is to take it all and write the best possible encyclopedia including them. WikiProjects don't exist for the purposes that you seem to think they do; WikiProject Christianity isn't here to exterminate non-Christian religions. They're here to write articles related to Christianity; this is related to Christianity, just not in a positive way. If anything, you've probably just garnered more keep votes. Being someone who writes on Christian topics doesn't automatically mean that they're going to to have a negative POV against it whatsoever. It means that they'll approach the article differently, sure, but not quite in the way you're thinking. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

People don't need to be "at war" to hold opposing opinions, and nobody expects every person in a particular group to respond the same way - but, playing the odds, you're more likely to get more people to agree with you that Blind Lemon Jefferson is a genius if you approach WikiProject Blues than you are if you approach WikiProject Britney Rules. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You realise that by arguing against such notifications per WP:CANVAS and then going on to do exactly the same at those projects which you have notified, is deliberately pointy behaviour? I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:CANVAS but I would have been happy for the AfD to have been closed and restarted; now, though, your actions are contributing to the problem. Coldmachine^Talk 09:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how it could be interpreted that way, but my understanding of WP:POINT is that it's about actions which are done for the sake of an argument, not actions which are done for their own sake. If you look back up at my !vote above, you'll see that I expressed the opinion there that if this AfD wasn't going to be closed and a new one opened, then at the least, SP's canvassing should be countered. Since this AfD is obviously going ahead, I was simply acting on my initial idea, so my action was taken to make a point -- oh you canvassed, so can I -- but to fulfill those conditions and even out the situation. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed my notifications to the wikiprojects (not because it was wrong, as it happens in hundreds of AfDs, but because I don't need this "aggro" (by which I mean bother etc.) ) so can we not go on about this now and consider it solved? It has not effected the way the AfD is going in any way and was only up for one day. P.S. If any Christians turn up, I credit them with the decency to view the article for whether it conforms to WP:RS and so on only, to view it objectively by Wikipedia's rules rather than religious objections. Sticky Parkin 09:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. An overwhelming number of citations from plenty of reliable sources (36) add up to notability, even if they only are cursory mentions. Found at WikiProject Christian music. Obviously I don't like the term, but that's not relevant. Royalbroil 12:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There are plenty of references and I have seen references to this myself. Captain panda 13:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Thirty-six sources and there's arguments for notability? I'm no Satanist and I'm familiar with the phrase outside of Rosemary's Baby. Also, I think a South Park episode (Woodland Critter Christmas) employed the phrase, and that's not even cited in the article. The article definitly has some POV problems, but the subject itself is notable. Themfromspace (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm intrigued about these POV problems people have mentioned, which no-one has demonstrated so far, but if there's any excessive POV I'm quite happy for it to be fixed or I'll change it. I'll be messaging you on your talk. I know more about this phrase now than anyone needs to lol:) Sticky Parkin 11:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I hate the phrase, but the article has been impeccably sourced and I'm not really sure why its up for AFD. Hell, it's okay saying that it's hardly notable, but you try finding someone that hasn't heard of the phrase or knows what it means...Porterjoh (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• To be fair, the article is in considerably better shape now than when I nominated it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it? I do think it's been improved in as much as being 'tightened up', but it had dozens of cites already when you nominated it. Plus, it was only a few days old when you nominated it, of course it was going to improve. This is the article before you nominated it. [14] It's much the same except for more cites for the content (due to a standard of one a sentence being asked) and some showy pics:) Anyway, as others have said, AfD is not for clean-up. Sticky Parkin 11:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It was lacking in scholarly sources and had a number of very poor or misrepresented sources, the worst of which I have since removed, while the rest of them were mostly passing mentions which in my opinion failed WP:NOTE. An article on a subject which is not notable is an article appropriate for AFD. You may think this subject is obviously notable but you should not assume that because it is a familiar phrase to you that it must necessarily be familiar to everyone. For the record I'm still not persuaded this article serves a genuine encyclopaedic purpose - do we really need to document every phrase employed by some subculture or another? - but in its current state I probably would not have felt strongly enough about it to nominate it for AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete The phrase itself is used or mentioned in the citations, but the phrase is not the SUBJECT of the citations. That a word or phrase, "gee wizz" for example, has been used frequently in culture or literature, does not mean the phrase itself is notable enough for encyclopedic content. Had the phrase been the subject of studies/reports/publications from third party, reliable, verifiable sources, one might have an argument for its inclusion. Also, I believe that canvassing/votestacking should be taken into consideration when counting consensus. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A phrase will rarely be the subject of an entire newspaper article but we have a whole category and several subcategories about phrases, because there are hundreds of WP:RS about a phrase such as this to make a verifiable article. "Gee wizz" doesn't have the variation of meanings to make an article which is more than a dictionary definition listing the date it was first used or something, perhaps. Unlike this one, it probably would just be a dictionary definition, and it's on wiktionary.[15] But then I haven't looked, it probably has sufficient sources for the numerous other stubs about phrases that we have that make articles and varied contexts, so maybe you could have a try at making an article about it if you really want lol:) But the phrase Hail Satan is used in numerous cultural contexts and types of media which can be discussed, the phrase has been criticised and been in the media prominently, and has a wealth of meanings. Plus the AfD was "votestacked" (to use the other 'side' of the debate's lack-of-WP:AGF and misinterpretation of the membership of wikiprojects phrase) more than three times as much in the opposite direction as I removed my notifications after one day (although nothing was wrong with them, just out of not wanting to escalate any dispute or give anyone any justification for their accusations) but someone notified six Christianity wikiprojects. However, unlike the other team's attitude to the wikiprojects, I credited the people who came from the Christian wikiprojects with having the ability for objectivity and decency to assess the AfD without any bias, according to WP:RS - and they proved that my assessment of them was correct. -P.S. Hey it's here hun lol Gee Whiz but it's a television episode or something:) Sticky Parkin 02:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I credited the people who came from the Christian wikiprojects with having the ability for objectivity and decency to assess the AfD without any bias - Yeah, sure you did. That's why you didn't bother notifying any of them yourself. Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are an admin, you sure are not acting like one. Stay civil. Stop with the sarcasm. We are not here to insult other users. Come on now. Undeath (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Trying to up the ante with gratuitous charges of incivility is potentially a much more serious breach of WP:CIV in my book. I suggest you try to avoid such tactics. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And refactoring comments after someone has responded to them is also best avoided... Coldmachine^Talk 10:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it's my own post. And it didn't change the meaning one iota. But since your comment implies otherwise, I have now restored the original version for the sake of transparency. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought (rightly or wrongly) Christianity not quite related to the subject in the same way as Wikiproject Left Hand Path and Wikiproject Black Metal is all. Christians don't tend to study or use the phrase "Hail Satan" a lot, do they, or listen to media in which it is used particularly frequently? Not the ones I know, anyway.:) I did consider notifying them when people made this fuss over it but instead decided to remove my notifications to the wikiprojects who would have the most knowledge of how the phrase is used. The same as a Muslim would know more about the phrase As-Salamu Alaykum than me. Plus I only have so many hours in the day lol. But I've appreciated the input from the Christian wikiprojects. Sticky Parkin 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Easily passes WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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.