Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Left Hand Path


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Order of the Left Hand Path
Contested speedy... procedural Tawker 21:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Bearing in mind that it is New Zealand group and I did came across it in European 'zines, it must be notable by subculture standarts. Also it is mentioned in academic sources (below). I know there are lots of trigger happy editors to delete articles like this, but actually article like this are very useful to people interested in New Religious Movements and subcultures. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 21:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Bearing in mind that it is New Zealand group and I did came across it in European 'zines, it must be notable by subculture standarts. Also it is mentioned in academic sources (below). I know there are lots of trigger happy editors to delete articles like this, but actually article like this are very useful to people interested in New Religious Movements and subcultures. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 21:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Bearing in mind that it is New Zealand group and I did came across it in European 'zines, it must be notable by subculture standarts. Also it is mentioned in academic sources (below). I know there are lots of trigger happy editors to delete articles like this, but actually article like this are very useful to people interested in New Religious Movements and subcultures. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 21:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Zines do not establish notability. Leibniz 21:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable occult group.
 * Comment It (as Ordo Sinistra Vivendi, or as Order of the Left Hand Path, or as both) is mentioned in mainstream research publications., (same in Polish ); (same in Lithuanian ). And here , and here Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable. The references provided by Encyclopaedia Editing Dude don't look to me like 'mainstream research publications' (at least, the English ones don't).  Go to the link homepages and see - Eternal Word Television Network,  gatago.com, www.locksley.com.  Emeraude 22:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Question. Australian Association for the Study of Religion and CESNUR are not mainstream? How about UCLA ? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Answer: I said, quoting you originally "not 'mainstream research publications' ". But OK, let's read the opening sentences from the Australian Ass. for the Study of Religion (a 1998 press release by the way): "I am editing a handbook of information on new religious groups and associations in Australia. The greater part of the information included in the handbook is provided by the groups themselves."  Draw your own conclusions.  Emeraude 10:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at the sources again:
 * PHENOMENON OF SATANISM IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY by Giuseppe Ferrari from L'Osservatore Romano (the newspaper of the Holy See)
 * Skandalon 2001: The Religious Practices of Modern Satanists and Terrorists by Dawn Perlmutter from Anthropoetics:The Journal of Generative Anthropology  7, no. 2 (Fall 2001 / Winter 2002) by UCLA
 * The Gothic Milieu: Black Metal, Satanism, and Vampires by Massimo Introvigne - presented at the conference "Rejected and Suppressed Knowledge: The Racist Right and the Cultic Milieu" organized by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, Stockholm, 15-16 February 1997

These are quite mainstream publications for me.--Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, They would be, if they in fact proved more than the bear bones of existence. I'd note that only two sources (the first and third) in fact mention the group at all, with the second being a paper on the general phenomenon which doesn't mention it. Of those two sources mentioning it, the first merely includes it as part of a list of satanic groups, which proves that the author has heard of it and very little else. The third does pretty much likewise, but adds that the group has "less than fifty members", which seems to suggest that it's not a particularly serious concern. Therefore, delete based on the sources provided. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Second source mentions it under the name Ordo Sinistra Vivendi (multiple mentions by academic sources proves cults notability). And earlier mentioned website of AASR gives more detailed overview on this cult. There is also lengthy article on this cult in the website of Russian Orthodox church . Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 09:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip on the second source. That said, we're still left with three sources there which mention this group in passing as part of a list of similar groups, which doesn't establish notability at all. Quoting from this guideline, we see that something must be "described by multiple independent reliable sources", with described the operative word - I don't see a description in any of those sources beyond the barest mention of the name (and, occasionally) the alternative name in either Latin or English. It's generally accepted that a mention which only says that something exists proves nothing beyond the fact that it exists. The AASR website has quite rightly been called into question by another user for containing information provided from the group itself, which renders it somewhat less than "independent" and may well render it unreliable to boot. I don't have any Russian, so I can't pass any judgement on exactly what's being said there, or indeed anything else regarding the independence or reliability of the site. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is standart procedure regarding New Religious Movements to ask them to provide information on their beliefs, this is how research is done. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly entitled to be standard procedure, but it renders the information less than impartial. Don't just take my word for it - it's in that quote I cited earlier, "described by multiple independent reliable sources". Simply reprinting information provided by a group or a person isn't being independent. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Never the less this information was processed by Dr. Rowan Ireland which makes it perfectly independent and reliable source, unless of course you have a proof that he enjoys worshiping Satan in his spare time, then he's not busy reading lectures at uni. That is the only thing, I'm afraid, that will make this source not independent. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 08:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you and I might be defining "independent" in different ways. I'm not saying that Dr Ireland himself isn't independent, he certainly has the capability to be. What I'm saying is that the information contained in that source isn't independent. Dr Ireland can be a Satanist, a Zoroastrian or a Raelian for all it matters, what matters is where he gets his information from. If Dr Ireland wrote a book in which he described this group in reasonable detail, that would be a description by an independent and reliable source. What we have here is a press release saying that Dr Ireland was intending to write a book (which doesn't appear to have been released, incidentally). The information he tells us he will use is sourced directly from the group itself (i.e. it isn't independent - unless you take the view that the group would really provide impartial information). Such information as is in the press release is very scanty indeed (i.e. very probably not a description of the group). Having multiple sources telling us that the group exists is a good start, but it isn't the end of the deal - there are multiple sources stating that I exist, I know this because I applied for a passport today, but it doesn't make me notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "What I'm saying is that the information contained in that source isn't independent". If we'll follow that logic, it could be said, that Bibliologist shouldn't use Bible, because Bible is not independent source on Bible, but rather he should use, let's say - Quran? -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. And it was published as CD-ROM "Australia's Religious Communities: A Multimedia Exploration", and it's professional edition of included information on Ordo Sinistra Vivendi as can be clearly seen from this review . Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, there's a considerable difference there. A Biblical scholar won't just use the Bible - he or she will also use other material from other scholars, as well as the critical faculties of his or her own mind. There's no evidence in that press release that Dr Ireland had done either (in fact there's considerable evidence that he hadn't used material from other scholars). Had he written this book, it could well be a different story. Additionally, if the only evidence we had on the existence of the Bible came in the form of some people saying "Other examples of religious books are the Bible, the Talmud, the Bhagavad Gita..." and nothing more (as remains the case in this review of the CD=ROM database - it's still just proof of existence rather than anything else), then I doubt it would be worthwhile to include an article on the Bible. Of course, that isn't the case here, which rather causes problems for our friendly neighbourhood strawman. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

this one is quite a source on Kerry Bolton founder of discussed cult (OLHP is mentioned in the context of his belief system), so the ideology can be sourced now. Same can be said about evolution of OLHP into Black Order  -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:09, 2 November 2006 (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.