Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hail Satan (book)


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hail Satan (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence nor indication of notability, given certain other edits by article creator (who seems to be the only person pushing for it), appears to be subtly promotional. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Please add new posts at the bottom of the page. And read what we have posted first. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well if we;re going to delete things that offend others we might as well delete this whole damn site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.22.62 (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — 174.116.22.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Did it ever occur to you to try to look at actually look at why the article is being deleted? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep — A WORK OF ART! MUST KEEP THIS IS VERY WORTHY OF NOTORIETY!IF YOU SEARCH THE EXACT WORDS "I CAN READ WIKIPEDIA" INTO GOOGLE, THERE IS ONE WORD THAT STANDS OUT IN THE FIRST RESULT TO THAT SEARCH AND REST ASSURED THAT WORD IS FAR MORE OFFENSIVE THAN ANYTHING ABOUT SATAN! SATAN IS NOT AN INSULT AND IT DOES NOT PUT DOWN ANY RACE OR BELIEFS UN LIKE CHRISTIANITY WHICH IS JUST AS BAD AS THAT WORD THAT COMES UP WHEN YOU SEARCH " I CAN READ WIKIPEDIA" INTO GOOGLE. I BET ALL KINDS OF CHRISTIANS ARE OK WITH THAT RESULT! I HONESTLY DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR GUIDELINES AND I THINK THE CONTENT OF THE BOOK 'HAIL SATAN' OR ANYTHING BY IT AUTHOR IS MUCH TO GOOD TO BE FEATURED ON SUCH AN EXOTERIC CLOSE MINDED PAGE. THE INTERNET ISNT FOR DELETING EVERY THING THAT CERTAIN WHINY IRRELEVANT PEOPLE ARE DONT AGREE WITH, AND IN MY OPINION ANYTHING BY MYKHAILO CHORNYISYN IS FAR TO ESOTERIC AND MEANINGFUL AND THE INTERNET SHOULD BE FOR REASEARCH OF ALL TYPES, NOT JUST THE ONES THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE THINK ARE WORTHY AND WHICH ONES ARNT, IT PEOPLE LIKE THIS THAT MAKE THE MAJORITY OF TV PROGRAMMING AND COMMERCIALS AND OTHER SHIT THEY HAVE MADE GUIDLIES TO SHOVE WHATS IRRELEVANT TO RIGHT AND WRONG BECAUSE WHEN ITS ART AND SPIRITUAL BELIFS, ITS ALL A MATTER OF OPINION AND NO CAN DELETE AS MUCH WISDOM AS POSSIBLE TO MAKE ROOM FOR SOME CERTIFIED GUIDLINE MET IGNORANCE!!!!! CAPS LOOK IS ON BECAUSE IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE VERY WEAK AND CLOSE MINDED!  --≤Ḫ₳ẮŖḮ ʍʘ৳ʜ  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.135.7 (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — 76.175.135.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * CAPSLOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL! Turn off your capslock and read the notability guidelines. The article is being deleted because it does not meet those. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, 76.175.135.7, if all you're going to do is scream walls of text that really do not have anything to do with the subject at hand (NOTABILITY), then why should we consider your edits something other than vandalism? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete — Couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. — m o n o   00:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the tone of the article reads like the front- and back book covers, I don't think that it is over-the-top promotional. What is the fatal flaw, however, is failure to demonstrate coverage of this book in independent, reliable sources. The references cited in the article tend to be to older works that are the source of quotes used in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep – Below the references section is included an Online Sources section with topical artwork, excerpts and related news. C.Fred you might not have seen the section since Ian.thomson rapidly deleted the sources, stating the kiamagic.com source is a forum when, he simply saw the word "forum" in a navigation bar without realizing he was on a page within a reputable Occult community. These sources are added in the process and spirit of compliance. This dialogue is healthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackson (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not see that section, but looking at it now (this version), I see four links: a forum page with a couple of poems (and a link which may need to be removed due to copyright issues), a picture of sigils, cartoon artwork, and a blog/"people powered news" page. None of these meet the definition of reliable sources. Two are artwork without clear links, one appears to be content taken from the book, and the fourth, while it a critical piece covering the book, is not published in a reliable publication. I stand fully behind my previous statement, that there is no coverage in independent, reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be self-published - our old friends at www.lulu dot com, the rest of the link being /product/paperback/hail-satan/4830515 - which makes notability that much harder to demonstrate. In fact, the references given do absolutely nothing in this direction, being references to very much older works by other authors. These are fine for scholarly annotation, but for the current purpose in hand, no. The Serpent's Tongue interview might be a first piece in the mosaic, but unfortunately I can't get into it on this machine. Peridon (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The odd form of the link above is because the spam filter won't allow it in its natural form. I feel the link is necessary to this discussion, and is not being used for spam purposes. Peridon (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Week keep This one is a bit tough. I don't like deleting books from Wikipedia because it may sometimes be tough to find sources for them. However, Google has a bit on it and you can buy this from Amazon, which should account for something. Google searches for the author turn up more information. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Amazon will list almost anything. Being online only, they can sell books printed 'on-demand', and only get them when required (if...). High Street sellers have to buy in stocks of a book. If the book was regularly stocked on the shelf by Waterstones (for example) I'd be more impressed. Peridon (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The top links of this project page point to Google books as a method to find source, in affect condoning Google books as a valid database. Incidently, the book is available through Waterstones. Blackson (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2010
 * Delete - Any notable book will have been professionally reviewed, if only by Publishers Weekly. Inclusion in Amazon's catalog is hardly a badge of notability, as they have several million books, not to mention frying pans, toys and pet food.Minnowtaur (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I see nothing to attest to the notability of this book that even remotely satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements. Links provided by User:Undead warrior certainly are inadequate in this respect. I will also give a heads-up about canvassing from User:Blackson, and I have placed a warning about this on their talk page. __meco (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's notable in itself that there's someone from Russia who thinks Satanism is important enough to study. Interesting implications about the legacy of the Soviet Union on the religious beliefs of the Russian population, which appear to be nearly nil. Anyfors (talk • contribs) 08:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * — Anyfors (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Please read the this site's guidelines on notability, what you are refering to is not what notability means in this context. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment And to add onto the above, Anyfors, you have the right concept, just not the right words or way points to getting to it. In my opinion, a bunch of these sources will be tough to find since the book is Russian. However, if we can find a Russian translator, we may be able to find some better sources for this book. Granted, I did dig up a few things on the book's writer. Also, if this is kept, which I do believe it should be, it definitely needs re-written. (Not completely, but a good overhaul would be in order) Undead Warrior (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The book appears to be in English, but good Russian references would help. They can be understood by someone here. As it's self-published, you've got to get rather good refs - Amazon won't do. Peridon (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think it should be kept, but I do agree with the comment above that a good overhaul should be done. -- njb2990 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njb2990 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * — Njb2990 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - I believe that this article will be beneficial to those interested in the LHP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.80.169 (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Request checkuser for the above two people. Looks extremely suspicious. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * — 75.120.80.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Stoneke1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - I'm not a Wikipedia expert on this kind of material, or the notability topic - my involvement only being with fact articles - but trying to differentiate this one from the mountain of other books on here is not easy. Ultimately, I ask myself, would I expect Wikipedia to have a reference to a controversial, specialist item like this? Yes. Would I expect it to have its own article? For something this unique (simply meaning one of a kind)? Yes. I defer to you experts on criteria fulfillment, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneke1 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Deleting content just because one does not agree with it is pretty narrow minded. I have the book and have read it. There is no incorrect information on the Wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.83.46 (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)  — 72.23.83.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * How do you know that we all 'disagree' with it? I'm neutral on the matter of the subject, not coming from either side of the God-Satan conflict. I'd be quite interested to see a copy of the book (but don't intend to buy it unseen), but that doesn't mean I think it notable enough for an article here. I have quite a few books in my collection by authors that wouldn't make it to article status on Wikipedia. I don't need to have read it to determine my position on this one's status. I don't doubt that the information given is correct. It isn't enough. There needs to be an indication of coverage and/or reviews in reliable independent sources. I am quite prepared to change my mind if the necessary info comes up. The presence of so many single purpose or anon posters suggests to me that the evidence isn't obtainable. This is very often the case here at Articles for Deletion. It doesn't work. Peridon (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And as I've said repeatedly on the talk page, I'm far more strict with Christians on this site. It isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with me, it's agreeing with the guidelines.  Ian.thomson (talk)


 * Comment - "I like it" is not a standard of notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Deletion is the enemy of free speech, even if content is not 100% correct or to someones liking it is opinion and the internet is built on the opinion of millions of individual users from all faiths and walks of life. Therefore it is not up to one individual to decide what stays or goes. Carbraxas (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — Carbraxas (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * In AfD, the decision is made after a review of the valid arguments given by users. It IS the decision of the closing admin, based on the discussion, that is by one person. That is the Wikipedia rule, and if you don't like it, you can start your own encyclopaedia and make your own rules. Note that I say valid arguments. Numbers of posters saying they like something, or accusing the regulars of bias while ignoring the points they are making, just count for nothing. Listen to what we say, find what we are asking for, and the article can be saved. Go on waffling and it'll disappear. Peridon (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Peridon. Carbraxas, "Free speech" does not apply to Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2010 (U

It is due to be written about in a webzine set for September 2010 publication and release, The webzine is not associated with the author. Does this count? Kimberley Zellers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.45.220 (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — 72.95.228.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep The point of all art is to cause reaction which leads to new thought;which this work does quite admirably.Not to mention that it is a beautiful expression of the LHP, which in its self is a rare phenomenon .--72.95.228.42 (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — 72.95.228.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - I'm a strict inclusionist on anything having remotely to do with religion, be it Satanism or Catholicism or Scientology, but the fact is if this book were notable somebody somewhere would have written something about it in a reputable magazine or other forum. Unless substantive references can be found, in English or Russian or whatever, this will have to be deleted.Minnowtaur (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the webzine notable enough to have an article? If not, then not likely. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete No coverge to indicate any notability whatsoever. Just spam. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There's nothing wrong with this article that isn't wrong with tens of thousands of others. The sole reason this was marked for deletion is it's content, which offends the religious. Someone should merely note the book on their website and use it as a source, then rewrite the article to be more factual and less biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.233.143 (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — 97.96.233.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You have no idea what you're talking about. Look at the notability guidelines and the reliable source guidelines.  Someone just mentioning it on their website is not going to solve the problem.  The book needs something like an article about the book in a magazine or newspaper that serves a general audience to establish notability.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a bit offended by these people and THEIR religious bias. They seem to assume that everyone who is not a Satanist is a Christian and out to persecute them. Well, I ain't. I'm not a Satanist and I'm not a Christian. 'Religious' does not equal 'Christian' or 'anti-Satanist'. If someone wants to worship the lamppost outside my house, fair enough (so long as he/she does it quietly...). I don't say what my religion is, as it's my business not yours. But don't accuse me of being biased. Read my first post again and see what bias there is in there. I even suggest there may be notability in a ref I can't open. FIND REFERENCES THAT FIT THE WIKIPEDIA POLICIES instead of parroting about art and beauty and bias. Do something positive to save the article. Get the refs, and I will look at them and if they fit the bill, I'll change my !vote. Peridon (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC) (who has just had a very hard day...)
 * Hopefully some folks besides these fundies will come in and either present references, or the article will be deleted and the peanut gallery will leave. Honestly, I would not mind one bit if someone found sources, it'd get those apes to shut up.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is BS, if it were a book on any other religion then we would not be having this discussion, The Christian Bible has a page and I'm sure that that is well published elsewhere   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.217.5 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * New stuff goes at the bottom, read why the article is actually being deleted (It does not meet WP:NOTABILITY) and address that. If you don't, you're just wasting everyone's time. The Satanic Bible has an article because it is written about in outside sources.  This article is just about a book of some flake's poems that noone in the media gives a shit about.  If that flake happened to be a Christian, Scientologist, Jedi, or whatever, the article would still be deleted.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Do I personally LIKE this `Hail Satan' book? No I don't, but the fact remains that there are enough people that DO like it to warrent its retention. Quote: ..."Wikipedia has a principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large." False remarks such as "Noon give a shit" are nothing less than your own biast opinion. Give me reliable references to back up your statement, or retract it. — 165.145.51.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Delete - The people who care about Wikipedia don't give a fuck about the CONTENT of this book. We are interested in its verifiable notability.  The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth, and there are inadequate independent verifiable sources to establish this book's notability.  Wikipedia is not a forum on which to seek publicity.  I suspect we have numerous SOCKPUPPETS leaving opinions on this page. Tsk tsk tsk.  Naughty Satanists!  I won't hold it against you though; from Hindu gurus to schismatic Catholics (and everyone in between) people of every belief system imaginable come to Wikipedia and try to gain some notability by ignoring its policies and creating articles that don't belong here. --Griseum (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Keep". This rubbish about "...get the refs and *I* will look at them..." is in itself, dictatorship. Who the HELL appointed YOU the watchdog? References from tabloids and other media sources are, at best, unreliable. What references can be quoted that are totally reliable? There are none. Even the Christian Bible cannot be considered `reliable reference'.
 * You don't understand what consensus is. Wikipedia is not a democracy, Wikipedia is not an anarchy. If you don't like that this site has standards for what qualifies as notable or what qualifies as reliable sources, you can leave. I'm not the one that determines notability, we have guidelines for that. I'm not the one that determines what sources are reliable, we have guidelines for that. All you have to do is find sources that meet the guidelines.  Bitching ignorantly won't do anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is absurd. Some Christian feel a little uncomfy about a book, and others don't get to know information about it? Would you do this for a Taoist wikipedia? A Buddhist, a Muslim, an Agnostic, Deist, Atheist? No I don't think you would. I feel offended by him wanting to take down any article because it's "demonic". That's unacceptable. This is ridiculous. There is no way in the civilized world we should be down to the beliefs of others. If it complies with Wikipedia's rules and standards, LEAVE IT NO QUESTION. We don't remove certain people like Teller because he's an Atheist and he OFFENDS other beliefs? No? Should this book be removed. I strongly say: NO! No. No! No; No! Thank you for opening a discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.244.222 (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what you are talking about. I tagged the article for deletion, I own texts from various religions, multiple grimoires, and I believe Satan is only a bad idea. I was not bothered by the content at all, I tagged the article for deletion because it does not meet the guidelines for notability. What would you say if the religious situations were reversed? What would you say if a Satanist tagged an article for deletion for not meeting the guidelines, and the Christian article author lied to his friends about the situation, saying it was only because of religion? Wouldn't the folks that come in screaming about persecution, completely ignorant of why the article is actually being deleted look pretty stupid? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read my post above where I state that I am NOT a Christian. This is the first article involving Satanism that I have been involved with. I have been involved with the demise of quite a few articles involved with Christian matters. Then again, why am I bothering to say this? Peridon (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's simply not sufficiently notable. I imagine all the supporters here were responding to . --04:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They likely are here because Blackson/Mykhailo prettily lied about the situation. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Satanism as a recognized religion LilithbethMiller (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Sheila Lilithbeth MillerLilithbethMiller (talk) — LilithbethMiller (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP. After reading the notability guidelines for "BOOKS" on this site if you will read under Subject specific guidelines under the BOOKS tab it says specifically : A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources one or more of the following criteria...I am citing criteria number 3: The Book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture,or other art form,or event, or political or religious movement...I Sheila Miller am a Satanist, High Priestess and Ordained Reverend..you Ian are not..I say the book "HAIL SATAN" is a significant contribution to the Satanic movement, Satanic thought and Satanic religion as a whole because as a Satanist I welcome other Satanists independent thought, beliefs and art as part of my own religious beliefs and embrace them as my own. Satanism and the Satanic movement are in its early stages and considered young in its years compared to other Religions of the world. A movement is described by definition as: actions or  activities,  as  of  a  person  or  a  body  of  persons.   Satanism is considered a religion by our United States government therefore cannot be excluded as one.
 * We are not saying Satanism should be excluded. There is, in fact, an article on Satanism. This was created in November 2001, in the first year of Wikipedia. Checking through the first five years of the article, I can see no attempt having been made to get it deleted. We are saying this book is not verifiably notable. We are not saying we don't like it. I have stated I would quite like to read it. We are saying we can find no evidence of notability BY WIKIPEDIA'S STANDARDS of notability. And I an once again urging the article's supporters to find evidence. Do any of the people here calling for deletion say they disapprove of Satanism? Or is it just this book they find non-notable? Peridon (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, what the US Government decides internally is only slightly more relevant to me than is a declaration by the Pope. It is not my government, as I am not an American citizen or resident. However, I do admire their decision to recognise Satanism as a legitimate religion. I too regard it as valid as Christianity. Peridon (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm king Joffy-Joffur, ruler of Zamunda, and I can assure you that my farts are culturally significant, too. - you completely missed the reliable source guidelines, WP:RS. We can't verify anything from your personal statement (or even that it is your personal statement). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Satanists have as much a right to practice as anyone else that whose religion is not harmful (I'll avoid cracks at the Church of Scientology for now). Making sure an article about a book stays on an encyclopedia is not part of any flavor of Satanism, though.  This article changing by either acquiring sources, or being deleted, does not threaten anyone's right to practice their religion.  (Would have put this earlier, but I've been editing from my phone until recently, and it takes a several frustrating minutes just to put single characters I use unconsciously with a keyboard, which probably has affected my mood).  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep the Satan Page.Corred (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom; complete lack of reliable sources to indicate notability. The majority of keep !votes fail to address the actual reason for nomination – obviously a consequence of the dishonest canvassing that has occurred off-wiki.  Even those that do address the issue of notability don't seem to understand it.  AJ  Cham  01:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the Satan article. That's staying.  This is about a book that does not have any sources showing it to be notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I originally posted as a "keep;" however, after reviewing Wikipedia's notability page and most of the arguments I am now for deleting the page until it gains further notability. Right now it simply does not have the required notability, maybe in a few months to a year it will and then the page can be remade. Let it be known I am a Satanist and would very much like the "Hail Satan" article to stay up, but alas rules are rules. 24.163.9.106 (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)njb2990

This book is only 12 months old, it is written by a new author, on an obscure topic. This does not mean however that the subject will fail future attempts at notability criteria. A lot of past authors & artists only became famous after their death & notability did not come about until late in life, or after life. I understand Ian's arguments, and had I not read the FAILN article I would've agreed.
 * Keep - Re: FAILN (Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines)

However, when googled there are over 12 pages of links to the author & book, at least 2 webzines have stated that they have (will) run reviews, (I am aware that they are not considered relevant in the argument, however if they have a large readership & can provide evidence to support this, then I think it should be at least reviewed, not solely dismissed) and taking into consideration that Satanist books & literature are a very unique topic readership & notability can take time to build.

If Ian is not swayed by these "Keep" arguments, perhaps merge some information into a more mainstream topic, and re-write the article after the September reviews are out from peer "zines".

FAILN If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: In this case, the peer review 'zines' should at least be considered, not solely dismissed (eg:  "Marie RavenSoul, Founder/Publisher 'The Serpent's Tongue'"  and  "It is due to be written about in a webzine set for September 2010 publication and release, The webzine is not associated with the author. Does this count? Kimberley Zellers"). (a new account, but happy to be contacted for individual verification). Msklb (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[6] for advice on where to look for sources.


 * "This does not mean however that the subject will fail future attempts at notability criteria." True. "It is due to be written about in a webzine set for September 2010 publication and release" - maybe. In both cases, however, WP:CRYSTAL applies. Please understand that we have looked for sources, and that under WP:BURDEN it is really up to the creator to supply referencing anyway. We have asked the posters on this page (which includes the creator) to find references. We still haven't got them. (I currently can't get into the Serpent's Tongue.) Webzines are a doubtful place for sourcing. It is sometimes difficult to establish their notability/independence from their contents. Some approach the level of print mags like Time, others are glorified blogs. And blogs aren't allowed for establishing notability. (Nor is Wikipedia...) I'm afraid that individual verification isn't within the rules (unless I've missed something). Peridon (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Many of the "keep" arguments completely miss the reason the article is being deleted, some of them are just ignorant accusations of me and other editors being fear-mongering, bible-thumping, torch-bearing fundies (the talk page is much worse), despite my thoughts and actions demonstrating that is not the case, and only one of the other regular editors involved identifying as a Christian (who I won't point out, but considering the interests he lists on his userpage, I'm quite sure there's no intolerance on his part, either). Pardon me if I have missed someone presenting something that would actually meet WP:RS that would make the article meet WP:NOTABILITY, without trying to turn wikipedia into a crystal ball.  Msklb, off the top of my head, you, Undead warrior, LilithbethMiller are the main folks that have been paying attention and thoughtfully contributing to the "keep" side (I am not including Blackson because of his dishonest canvassing on facebook).  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep — I'm not a fan of poetry, but a written work on a unique topic should have an independent point of reference from an encyclopedic stand point. It also has multi-cultural implications from a soviet-religion stance. Absinthe  (Talk) 16:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's the problem: there are no independent points of reference at the moment. There aren't any sources that show that the work is notable.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Accusations of systematic bias on Wikipedia are beyond ludicrous considering articles such as The Satanic Bible and Might is Right exist. Nevertheless, this article reads almost exactly like an advertisement for the book, and fails to put it in context of why it's important.  A book of poetry is a sticky situation, since unlike a nonfiction book it cannot be argued to contain unique or vital information, and thus must rely on the vindication of time and critics (or reputation of its author) to establish itself as truly noteworthy.  Unfortunately I see neither here, the text of this article is about what I'd expect from a sales blurb on Amazon. - OldManNeptune (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2010 (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.