| BEFORE YOU POST: The article is being deleted because it does not meet this site's definition of notability and lacks what this site definines as reliable sources (to demonstrate notability). Address these issues. Going on about persecution and censorship is missing the actual issue and is only going to make you look like ignorant. New comments go at the bottom of the page, please sign your post with four tildes (~~~~).
|
There are a lot of articles about recent writers/musicians/artists and their books/music releases/works on Wikipedia. Nobody knows as of yet which ones will prove to be significant additions to the cultural exchange, and which will become footnotes or forgotten. However, I truly believe that one of the things that makes Wikipedia different from every other effort to record information by/about humanity in the past is the fact that it does not attempt to be inclusive only on the basis of long-term "notability". In other words, the information is there for use by others no matter how few in number those might be. To this end, if a page like the one under discussion is deleted, the pages for large numbers of other artists and works will need to be deleted as well, and the Wikipedia experiment will have failed.
I think, in this connection, that there is in addition the possibility that the person objecting to the inclusion of the page may in fact be grinding a far different axe: religious intolerance. Admittedly, a book titled "Hail Satan" about the traditions of the Satanic religion is bound to be somewhat inflammatory to some people, but I'm sure the Wikipedia project itself doesn't care about that, does it? So as far as I'm concerned, I'd let the page stay. It only takes up a few Kb of space, it's better referenced than half the artist pages I've read (especially the musicians, who appear not to know how to cite anything at all) and it does no harm.
Anyfors (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we have a lot of articles about recent artists of various kinds and their works, and we delete them. We don't care about what might "make it" or not, that's not our job, we're not a crystal ball. Otherwise, we'd just be 99% articles about shitty garage bands that noone is ever going to care about. Try citing actual guidelines. WP:NOTABILITY is one of them. Wikipedia hasn't failed yet by holding articles to that standard. Show me an existing article about something that isn't notable, and I'll tag it for deletion. Accusations of religious intolerance is not assuming good faith. I have repeatedly tagged for deletion articles for about Christian churches, charities, and bands. I honestly don't give a damn what the article is about. For crying out loud, I'm theologically hyper-liberal (I pray to Sophia, think heaven and hell are the same place, draw more theology from Philip K Dick and George Lucas than I do Martin Luther or St Augustine, and believe evolution is part of the plan for redemption). Do you really think I'm going to be bothered by someone identifying as a Satanist?
- Now, aside from paranoid accusations and a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about, do you have any actual reasons based on the site's guidelines why this article should stay? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I for one disagree with the deletion of this article because it is based on biased terms. Just because something is offenses to one person does not mean it's offensive or threatening for that matter-to all. -Nox SabbatumAzazm333 (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, if the book were outright offensive, it might make it more notable. The Satanic Verses* is a notable book not so much for the content of the book as for the outcry about it and its perceived offensiveness. However, no sources have been provided to show any public outcry, any book-burnings, any complaints about the content of Hail Satan, which is one less way for the book to be shown notable.
- * And yes, I know that Rushdie's book isn't about Satanism per se; however, it's the most useful example I could think of to illustrate the point. —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The attempted deletion of this page proves the Christian intolerance and hatred of the left hand path religions. To delete this page is a slap in the face for the freedoms of speech and religion. (l33tsamurai) —Preceding unsigned comment added by L33tsamurai (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting an article about a book of poetry is by no means an attack on the religion in question. Most, if not all, of the editors involved in the discussion would be just as eager to delete a book of Christian, Jewish, Pastafarian, or secular poetry if it was equally un-notable. —C.Fred (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, C.Fred. I'm compiling a list of actions I've taken against Christians, actually. But folks (folk?) with persecution complexes (complex?) will ignore that. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, Satanism technically isn't a religion, it is a philosophy. Ever Satanist has a different way/path, no two Satanists are the same unlike Christianity, Judism, Islam and other right hand religions. l33tsamurai —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Actually, that's an overgeneralization of right-hand religions. I'm trying to remember the exact quote, but basically, to get three answers on any question concerning Wicca, just ask two Wiccans. —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JonnyDavidsonofsatan (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)keep! I feel if every hotel room can stuff a xian bible in every night stand in the room and can have web pages dedicated to xianity then Satanists should be no different, just because you disagree does not mean it should disappear. That is like a person participating in a hurdles race saying "it would be easier on me if you remove the hurdles" how ridiculous!! JonnyDavidsonofsatan (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)JonnyDavidsonofsatan[reply]
- I agree that Satanists should not be treated differently and should not have the hurdles removed just for them. That's why I favor deleting the page: there's no reason to ignore the existing guidelines for this article or any other article on Satanism. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else find it odd that a bunch of new accounts are coming up after this AFD was started? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust the closing administrator can spot any reverse-WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, or anything similar that doesn't address Wikipedia's guidelines, and disregard them as appropriate. Nonetheless, I've noted the possible offsite canvassing on the main AfD page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's hope so. Anyone else smell socks? Maybe it's meat? Eh, well, we'll wait for more. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Not to mention intellectual curiosity? If one sect is allowed to delete the entries of another this will be a sad day for Wikipedia which up till now has become established as one of the best shared resources on the Internet. I strongly am against deletion of this article for the same reasons that I would retain the Christmas story or any other article of our shared religious experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corred (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since March, I have undone the work of at least 19 different Christians (not counting anonymous vandalism on non-Christian religion articles), because their edits went against the guidelines. Take your bullshit accusations of sectarianism elsewhere. "Freedom of Speech" is not an argument for going against the site's guidelines on notability. Freedom of speech "does not require that a private, charitable organization like the Wikimedia Foundation give a soapbox to all comers. Wikipedia is dedicated to expanding access to the sum of human knowledge - not providing a platform for human freedom of expression." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - No one should be able to impede an article on Wikipedia just on bias and because of their personal beliefs; this book is relevant to many people who partake in the occult practice and including but not just retaining to Satanism. It seems most articles created on subjects like Satanism are deleted, yet these articles are relevant and have a following of support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic93 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Thomson you need to learn how to say things politely without the use of gutter language.Corred (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And you need to look at the previous actions of users and the guidelines that the article fails to meet before before making blanket accusations of sectarianism. It makes you look completely plain ol' ignorant. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the book is as relevant as you indicate, then all you need to do is show where the book has been reviewed, discussed academically, or anything else that would count as significant coverage in a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm emphatically NOT a christian-- in fact I'm far closer to the author in question. I absolutely despise christians and christianity. But unfortunately, an obscure, new book of poetry does not meet the notability requirement regardless of its content. The author is attempting to stir up a furor about this and recruit other Satanists from Myspace to bolster his claim of unfairness. But unfortunately, obscure books of poetry are a dime a dozen. Let's see if this one is still around two years from now or if it's remaindered, out of print and forgotten in its (most likely well deserved) obscurity. If there's anything I dislike nearly as much as christians, it's self promotion. Good luck with all that, Mikhail. 29 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.9.179 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read and understood completely the Hail Satan (book) page.
There is nothing inflammatory or dangerous in this particular page. While it may need the help of an expert in Satanism to bring it to life, this page need not be deleted on that account. This page can stay as it is, for it is a basic book report that has a positive light on Satanism, or at least neutral, and makes no attack on other religious beliefs. If an expert or someone who read the book a little better were to add input, the page would be better off.
To censor this page will produce an underground version of the same, which can't be deleted. Censorship produces an underground media. This happens without fail. Consider what happened in Nazi Germany once the fascists took control.
Like it or not, Satanism is not going away, and neither should this page.
http://www.myspace.com/kevin_magi_93
Kevinmzabbo (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Kevin Zabbo[reply]
- None of that addresses the issue of notability. If you aren't going to pay one bit of attention to the guidelines (because your argument does not address THE REASON why the article is being deleted, it does not meet the notability guidelines), why should we care what you think? How stupid do you think we are if you think we'te only doing this because we think it would stop Satanism or something? Did it occur to you that maybe you could try addressing the issue of notability (maybe even looking at the site's guidelines), did you miss the big notice at the top, or do you have some pathological need to talk about stuff you are completely ignorant about? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- from guidelines Wikipedia:Notability - "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject"
- from guidelines Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Wikietiquette - "Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette and "do not bite the newbies".
"AfDs are public, and are sometimes quoted in the popular press. Please keep to public-facing levels of civility, just as you should for any edit you make to Wikipedia."
See also: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#General advice Blackson (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Blackson[reply]
- So you have looked at the notability guidelines. Now could you point to what part of the guidelines this book qualifies under? Hm? And who in the popular press is going to look at this AFD if they haven't payed any attention to the book to begin with? And what excuse do new users have, with the large notice at the top of the page telling them to read the notability guidelines? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Satanic content as though it is a value laden word, it is a valid area of thought, practice and lifestyle that is real as the people people who think it. Wikipedia is an open source of information and shouldn't be biased by one portion of readers who happen to have ideological differences with a portion of the material.
By allowing free access to information, the readers who have biases towards a certain field of information will show their ignorance and hatred in their own actions. As well it should be considered how the very people claiming that Satanic thought, or whatever that generalization encompassed by the term is irrelevant or useless, are showing their ideological bias by attacking another beliefs in the name of their own.
We must ask ourselves, is there truth? What is truth?. There are many perspectives of some form of consensus reality we all share. If the search for knowledge and understanding can be likened to shining a flashlight around in the dark, why would one want to snuff out part of the beam of light?, essentially darkening the whole through chosen ignorance?.
Please Wikipedia, recognize where the biases lay in this/any situation and don't let history be written by the winners, of either side of any ideological discussion, as it narrows the scope of any informational subject when two sides of a whole are deemed 'right' or 'wrong', especially one based on some particular form of philosophical ethic, morality, dogma and/or agenda.
Please keep Satanic/LHP/'stereotypically dark'/controversial/non main stream spirituality in the scope of available knowledge on Wikipedia, otherwise, through the observed behaviour of the removing and censoring of said content, will show an intentional religious/ideological bias which would undermine the fundamental integrity of Wikipedia.
-DL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.43.193 (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability guidelines. Read them. You're completely missing the point, and you're not helping at all. I'm actually telling you people how to keep this article in place, and none of you are listening. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: " | BEFORE YOU POST: Read the guidelines concerning this site's definitions of notability and this site's definition of reliable sources (to demonstrate notability). Ignoring these guidelines will not help any argument. Wikipedia is not out to persecute any religion, but Wikipedia does not include articles on anything and everything. "
I don't understand how the determination is made that this book is not "Notable". I believe it IS notable. Just my opinion. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaborose (talk • contribs) 00:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you could try actually reading the notability guidelines to find out? Gee, naw, couldn't be that, could it? I mean, that sound ridiculous. Why would this site have notability guidelines if it wasn't to figure out whether or not something is notable? I mean, that's just crazy. And I believe you ARE wrong. Just my opinion. Checkmate and facepalm.Ian.thomson (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep this just goes too far; christians believe they have a "right" to oppress modern Satanism and religions of the Left Hand Path for one reason or another. whether its because they feel it is "Gods Will" or "an act of good nature", or even so far to "prevent others from tumbling across these texts". these acts of oppression have gone on long enough and they have taken this too ridiculous lengths. much as how most religious use the web to spread the readings to others who do follow similar beliefs. and when someone posts information and/or text on wikipedia for easy access for people looking for such information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randal T. Collier-Ford (talk • contribs) 04:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" I believe every one has the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Closed minded people should be enlightened and truth should be available for evey one to make up their own minds about these topics. What next? A witch hunt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.89.9 (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion about this, that the book itself is a nice addition to Satanic and or Occult poetry.Why not keep the wikipage as a great support for people who want to know about this genre and book. As I write in the same flow of mind, I reckon this could possibly happen to one of my books in the future. My name is Fleur Isabel Roosenstein. And I am standing up to this insanity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.149.56.13 (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! Just because people are reading this it does not mean they are bad people or going even join'the darker side' or anything. People can make up their own minds and views. DO NOT DELETE.
- 'Keep - I'd say it's pretty unethical to try to minimize one religion on this site unless you make it a point to minimize all of them. I think the people who don't make demands that articles about the bible be deleted are being good sports. But if an article relating to the Church of Satan or Satanism in general is deleted, then so should the articles on Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, Paganism, etc. If this site is going to be a legitimate online encyclopedia, then it can't be done half-assed. That means no censorship. If an article on this site offends someone he's perfectly free to not read it.
All of you, read the notability guidelines. All of you have completely missed the actual reason why the article is being deleted, none of you have addressed that, your arguments are completely empty and invalid. Study up, and come back when you actually have half an idea why the article is being deleted. Then you can attempt to demonstrate, using reliable sources, that the book is notable. Until then, your comments will be ignored. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd note that probably about half of all wiki articles have no sources. Someone should merely build a website mentioning this book so that it appeases the fundamentalists hellbent on making sure their kids don't access "evil" material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.233.143 (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, regarding your choice of the word "fundamentalist." Point to one. Please. I have yet to see anyone that qualifies as conservative in any fashion in this discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ian I would like to say that I am a conservative and a Satanist..why does that matter to you or what it even has to do with your arguements is moot!..What does matter is that you are screaming for "notability" on something that is a persons own interpretation and therefore is regarded as "art expression" to which thousands of other persons have also contributed over thousands of years..Blake, Oscar Wilde, Fredrick Nietzsche to name a few..Wikipedia must delete them all as well for they are also have publications on this site..for example "Human, All too human" by Fredrick Nietzsche has its own page as does "A picture of Dorian Gray" by Oscar Wilde also "The Last Supper" by DaVinci has its own Wiki page...so you are saying these works of art must be deleted as well?.. while you are at it you can have wikipedia delete anything published by any other author including the Bible!..I say leave people to their artistic interpretations regardless of how "you" feel about it as independent thought is a rare find in todays world...I say Keep!LilithbethMiller (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)LilithbethMiller[reply]
|
