Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Nine Angles

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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Nine Angles

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Delete, non-notable organization's website is hosted on tripod??? Tunnels of Set 05:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tripod?!? Also, at least some of the sources seem to be fake. "094664604X" for example turns up nothing on the ISBNdb. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reserving judgment pending discussion of the sources cited. This article at least claims to have some sources, but it is difficult to evaluate whether they are reliable, verifiable, and independent. "Thormynd Press" is the main publisher cited and only gets 236 google hits and apparently is primarily a publisher of books on Nazi Satanism. Is Thormynd independent of the subject of the article? Are the other sources cited reliable, verifiable and independent? Edison 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organization is mentioned in several published books - such as the one by Goodrick-Clark which mention is several pages long - and has been detailed in academic articles such as the Anthropoetics, and in various published magazines such as Searchlight. The Tripod site is a mirror site - not the actual site of the group. The assertion that some sources are "fake" is incorrect - did the writer of that comment bother to check the British Library catalogue, for instance? It does seem that there is or could be some partionship involved by some users associated maybe with ToS who want the article deleted - as the group under discussion s not liked by some adherents of other "satanic" paths or cults. The article clearly meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability given the range of published non-partisan sources listed. 65.57.106.27 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) — 65.57.106.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Since the group has been mentioned many times in various publications, both books and journals, it is notable, and its works are for sale by publishers such as Ixaxaar. There is also other non-Tripod like sites which contain the majority of ONA material such as www.openinquiry.org and www.sodl.moonfruit.com/onabooks. Anyways, what is wrong with a tripod site? Coolmoon 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a notable organization, which has received attention in a variety of published literature, from books to articles. Some of its own publications are listed in the British Library online cataloge. The sources as given in the current revision of the Wikipedia article are verifiable and broad, and perhaps some more sources could be included - they are "out there". Cloud-dreamer 06:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) — Cloud-dreamer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. This organization has been around forever and is generally a very respected group. Of all the groups on Wiki it's kind of ridiculous this is up for deletion. They have a number of published books and a small but dedicated and inluential following. This is a very important group actually who's members are usually somehat secretive but usually quite open when you meet them. Again, most defientily a keep.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Woe Unto Thee (talk • contribs). — Woe Unto Thee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.

— Nearly Headless Nick 13:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]