Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satanic holidays


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Satanic holidays

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not WP:Notable. The article itself says that there is no reliable information on the topic. If the Satanists have not cared to inform the public about their holidays why should WP have an article on the subject? Borock (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Your decisions are hasty and your investigations prior to nominating for deletion are superficial. A number of hits on Gbooks and GScholar, I picked the low hanging fruits and added three "good" references to the article.  Power.corrupts (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of those do not look very reliable to me. One was an article on how to treat "Satanic ritual abuse".Borock (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (??) It's not an article but a book - a perspective from clinical psychiatry where a notable shrink reports how he treats people with a possible history of Satanic ritual abuse. Some of his patients were in extra utmost agony at certain dates, which made no sense to the guy until he found out they correlated with Satanic holidays. That is why the Satanic holidays are mentioned in that book.  I have no clue as to why this source does "not look very reliable" to you? Power.corrupts (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because "Satanic ritual abuse" itself is considered to be, well, not a serious topic by the mainstream. (Its own article calls it a "Moral panic.") I would have nothing against an article on Satanic holidays if it were sourced to an official source of the Church of Satan (or whatever) by Satanists saying, "These are our holidays." The article as it is now is just guesses and rumors.Borock (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You should concentrate on the merits of the specific article. The core policy here is WP:V and multiple independent WP:RS reliable sources.  I dug some of those up.  I have no idea if Church of Satan exists or not, but if so, they would not be independent, and I doubt, reliable.  So what exactly could convince you? :-)  Power.corrupts (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing is this article is verifiable or reliable, as the article says so itself. Something from an official Satanic source would be a worthwhile addition to the article, but it would not establish notability -- as you also pointed out. Borock (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * comment blah blah, afd is not for clean up, nor is it one religion's duty to work on tangential articles. If you think an article is cr*p then fix it.  The SH's are not for satanists to fix up, a lot of lists of them are part of books by people who believe in Satanic Ritual Abuse, and describe these as numerous days when Satanists, they believe, were murdering, enslaving, and having orgies.  I for one would be far too lazzzzzzzy and boring to do such things.  This article, in some of its incarnations, would be a merge to the SRA article, as they are the only people for whom the long list of hols has any relevance.  Satanists themselves only celebrate a few days, except in as much as every day is a celebration, and we should all be out doing Something less boring instead.  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.:) Borock- the reason satanists have not added to the article much is because it is largely an irrelevant myth and we only tend to celebrate a few hols which aren't worth their own article that's genuinely about solely them.  You have got the crux of it with your comment about SRA, that doesn't necessarily mean it fails WP:NOTE though, as a fair few evangelicals have invented, sorry, written, about the subject of imaginary evil holidays.  Anyway, I for one have a life I should be living, as Satan intends me to do, rather than spending my time on the internets.:)  Byeeeeezzzzz:) Sticky Parkin 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

keep- just bothered to read the nice short article.:) It is factual and informative in it's current form, explaining the role of fundies and the true satanic holidays. It will dispell the myths while explaining about them. Thank you to those who cited etc the article and bothered to actually google themselves before nominating for afd.  Sticky Parkin 16:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge and Delete. I really don't see this meeting the notability guidelines, even with a few sources.  As it stands, the article primarily consists of claims of holidays but offers no documentation of any actual celebrations.  The article even goes to the point of noting apparent unfamiliarity with Satanism.  Therefore, if the article itself is saying that the sources are unreliable and there's not substantial notability to be had (and following the link provided in there I see a substantial amount of disagreement on when most holidays occur, or even on occasion whether they occur or not), I think that deletion is in order.  At most, this should be moved in with the main articles on Satanism.Tyrenon (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If Satan is the spirit of rebellion I am not surprised that Satanists do not agree with each other about what holidays to celebrate. :-) Borock (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See Merge and delete. Doing this causes GFDL messiness and is best avoided. -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge based on how large the article is after all non-verifiable information is stripped away. There appears to be enough sourcing to keep a redirect and an edit history, though. -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The section on Grand High Climax needs to go really as that appears to be WP:OR Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article is kept I will at least trim out the uncited part of that. BTW the 3 legitimate "Satanic holidays" (Walpurgisnacht, Halloween, and one's birthday) are celebrated also by millions of non-Satanists, and were probably not invented by Satanists. (I say with some confidence. :-) ) Borock (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note. We don't delete articles because they need improvement or expansion, per WP:BEFORE. We delete articles if they have no potential for improvement. The results of my Gbooks search proves that this concept is mainstream, passing WP:GNG, and certainly WP:V - therefore Wikipedia can have an article on what WP:RS refer are such holidays. Somebody with an interest in the topic can improve it, but it certainly won't be me. I believe the AfD nomination confuses notability with importance or relevance. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case at least the title should be changed to Real holidays celebrated by Satanists and fictional holidays made up by non-Satanists and said to be celebrated by Satanists. :-) Borock (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2009 (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.