Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In brief, the article is a list of figures deemed the saints of the religious denomination. However, the article relies largely on two sources: 1) Wasserman, B. J. (2007) Current List of Saints, and 2) Wasserman, J., Wasserman, N. & Crowley, A. (2013) To Perfect This Feast: A Performance Commentary on the Gnostic Mass. The first one is a .pdf file / a list published by GnosticMass.org, a site run by two "clergymen" of the denomination. The second source, is no different; it has the same authors as the website, and it's a WP:PRIMARY source describing their own belief system. I hate to say this, because it appears so highly bureaucratic, but we'd need WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY, WP:THIRDPARTY sources, and at the moment the article has none. Therefore, I've been thinking about a couple of solutions:


 * 1) To merge the article with Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. But do we really need to mention all the 75 "saints"? We would need sources that qualify for the merger as well.
 * 2) To nominate the article for AfD. Do we really need an article to enlist 75 "saints" of a religious denomination, especially if there isn't any independent secondary sources to discuss the subject? Is the topic area WP:NOTABLE enough to merit its own article in that case? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I have been unable to find any independent reliable sources that discuss the saints of this tiny religious group. I have previously discussed this matter with the nominator. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Shisha-guru is right.  The history of Western Occultism has been written.  It can't be too hard to find some form of commentary in the literature on Crowley's selection and today's reception.  (Swinburne?  Why Swinburne?  Who would read Swinburne these days?  And why is Mohammed's name invoked everytime Gnostic Mass is performed but Orpheus' only on special occasions!)  Until secondary literature is found and put in the article putting the contents into Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica is the appropiate solution. 94.133.216.126 (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably delete -- This is about an occult denomination, invented by Crowley. I am not clear how many adherents it has, but I suspect that there is an element of POV in the question of who is in the list, possibly Crowley's.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

— D1s0b3y (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd like to offer a counter toward the removal of this article. I feel that how little of an official sect might be, that it should have no bearing on the removal of an article accurately representing information about such sect.  In reading the history of the discussion regarding the deletion of this article I see many factors being brought up that seem to have no grounds regarding the subject of removing it such as questioning why certain people are on the list.  I'm afraid I don't see how that is relevant in making such a decision.  After going through the actual article I have found no unreliable sources on this page.  When we consider the Wikipedia standard of Identifying Reliable Sources, I find no contradiction or unsuitable source at all.  To comment only on some (as to not fill this page with repetitive information, Source 1 is Tau Apiryon, a Bishop of the Church itself and fully qualified to comment upon the central rite, The Gnostic Mass in which the saints are called.  Source 2 is Hymenaeus Beta, the actual International head of the Ordo Templi Orientis of which the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica is a part of.  Source 3 is Aleister Crowley, the person who actually wrote the Gnostic Mass in which the saints are called.  He also was the International Head of the Ordo Templi Orientis in which the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica is a part of.  Source 4 is Agape, which is the official and sanctioned news letter of the USA Grand Lodge of Ordo Templi Orientis.  Source 5 is James Wasserman, also a Bishop of the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica sited from his published work commenting on the Gnostic Mass.  This particular citation is considered to be one of the most insightful and qualified commentaries ever made on the Gnostic Mass.  I'm afraid if I list further that I may be simply beating a dead horse...  The sources in this article are absolutely qualified, they meet the criteria of Wikipedia's reliable source as it is 1.  properly cited to the piece of work itself 2. properly cites the creator of the content and 3. properly cites the publisher of the work.  It goes even further as to assure the sources are qualified and even comprise a list of some of the most authoritative experts on the matter.  I have supplied enough information above to allow you all to verify the sources are legit. D1s0b3y (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not only does the article rely on primary sources, those sources are all partisan in nature. Without independent, reliable sources we cannot write articles. This has to go and I urge the authors behind this article to start editing Wikipedia completely outside their areas of expertise or interest to actually learn what we're doing here. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Chris troutman. If the only grounds for removing the article are independent sources then I must say the article either needs them added or needs to be rewritten with a more rounded approach. However, from my experience on Wikipedia, independent sources don't appear to be a make it or break it qualification for articles. D1s0b3y (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

*Keep Most of the arguments for deletion are fairly specious. There are plenty of secondary sources given, the primary sources being Crowley, any commentary by subsequent members of the churches ecclesiastical hierarchy are necessarily secondary. Bias is allowed in the very Wikipedia standards which the person nominating this article for deletion cites, so I'm not sure what their criterion is. This is not an argument about beliefs per se, in any case, merely who the church itself holds to be its saints. And that has been fully clarified by the sources given, most of which are secondary and some of which have no bias. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on minor sects and their beliefs, this article is no different. Linking to who those Saints are has been the major problem here for some time, but I don't believe any of the personages linked are any longer in question. As a religious studies scholar myself I frequently come to Wikipedia as a first look at minor religions and their beliefs. There is no reason not to have more rather than less in these situations. Stealthepiscopalian (talk Stealthepiscopalian 19:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian
 * Comment In response to the "keep" recommendations by and, neither of you seems to understand an essential part of the General notability guideline, which says that when "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." None of the sources now in the article are independent. Nothing written by anyone affiliated with the denomination is independent. All sources are written by people affiliated with this tiny occult denomination. If either of you, or anyone else can furnish evidence of coverage in truly independent reliable sources, then I will be happy to change my recommendation to delete. The onus is on those who advocate for keeping the article to produce the independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this list of "saints". Cullen328   Let's discuss it  05:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Notice User Sthealthepiscopalian was confirmed as a sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely. I hope there isn't WP:CANVASSing going on outside Wikipedia. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cullen328, After seeing your link I'm willing to change my stance that the page should be deleted. If independent sources is truly a requirement for articles to be on Wikipedia than clearly this article does not fit the bill.  I certainly hope that other articles are held to the same standards such as the List_of_Catholic_saints as it has minimal sources and all appear to be primary sources and no independent secondary sources.  If that is the standard than the "saints of the EGC" article needs to be deleted or resurrected with a higher standard.  I'm in agreement.  D1s0b3y (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete As single (primary) source, POV, not notable, [take your pick] PlainJain (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Keep Notable, the sources are fine  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.146.128 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2016 (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.