Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Nine Angles (2nd nomination)


 * 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 05:50Z 

Order of Nine Angles (2nd nomination)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Satanist order. Prior AfD was overturned at deletion review. Procedural nomination, no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 09:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If the deletion was overturned at deletion review - why is it being nominated again? How is that a procedural nomination? --Madmedea 16:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep obscure, but referenced article about international group. Just needs a tidy. Totnesmartin 17:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete (bordering on abstain), there referneces are rather tricky to check up on. Another user on the previous AfD mentioned trouble finding out if the sources even exist. Plus there is the whole hosting on tripod which raises doubts. As is the nature of this I've seen nothing conclusive yet to say this should be deleted, merely gut feelings and other parts of it not quite checking up. Hence a weak delete. Mathmo Talk 17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The group is referenced several times in books. Said books exist, follow that link to see them. I agree that the article doesn't simply reiterate what's written about the group elsewhere - but it did originally include a rather detailed summary of their writings (from the Tripod mirror, sure). There is recorded audio material by a member of the group out there too. And, I'd like to reiterate, the previous AfD for this article was started by a known sockpuppet, and the votes were 4-2 for a keep. Davidicke 23:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete like I said in the first AfD, I had trouble verifying the sources. The fact that it's hosted on Tripod is also a concern.  With domains being so cheap (less than $20 if you shop around), it's tough to imagine any notable organisation relying on Tripod to host its official site.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see Notability. Does it objectively matter where their site is hosted? Davidicke 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - it is obvious that not all the books listed under "references" have actually been used as references, or the article would be a lot longer. If no one can independantly verify this (or at the very least, track down one of those books) the article could certainly be deleted.- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 20:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A person mentioned on the first nomination something about the ISBN numbers not even existing. Mathmo Talk 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. At least some of the sources are real.  That said, this article needs substantial cleanup.  The sources need independent evaluation, and the article needs to make note that much of the writings about the group from outside the occult community focus on concerns over how it hybridizes occultism with white supremecy.  References to start with include Investigating Religious Terrorism and Ritualistic Crimes by Perlmutter, Dawn (CRC Press, 2003.  ISBN 978-0849310348.  See especially p.140) and Into a World of Hate by Ryan, Nick (Routledge, 2004.  ISBN 978-0415949224.  See especially p.18) (cited in the article, although with a different title and publisher).  Serpent&#39;s Choice 08:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I agree. This used to be a much larger article, but looks like it was pared down tremendously before the first AfD began. See the answers.com article for comparison. Davidicke 3:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources provided. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm the one who put forward the deletion review, and I wanted to note that one person in the first AfD said, "The article clearly meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability given the range of published non-partisan sources listed." Whichever way you vote, I hope you'll add which Wikipedia policy your vote is based on, just to clarify your stand. Davidicke 23:34, 8 February 2007 (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.