Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hail Satan (book)

{|

There are a lot of articles about recent writers/musicians/artists and their books/music releases/works on Wikipedia. Nobody knows as of yet which ones will prove to be significant additions to the cultural exchange, and which will become footnotes or forgotten. However, I truly believe that one of the things that makes Wikipedia different from every other effort to record information by/about humanity in the past is the fact that it does not attempt to be inclusive only on the basis of long-term "notability". In other words, the information is there for use by others no matter how few in number those might be. To this end, if a page like the one under discussion is deleted, the pages for large numbers of other artists and works will need to be deleted as well, and the Wikipedia experiment will have failed.

I think, in this connection, that there is in addition the possibility that the person objecting to the inclusion of the page may in fact be grinding a far different axe: religious intolerance. Admittedly, a book titled "Hail Satan" about the traditions of the Satanic religion is bound to be somewhat inflammatory to some people, but I'm sure the Wikipedia project itself doesn't care about that, does it? So as far as I'm concerned, I'd let the page stay. It only takes up a few Kb of space, it's better referenced than half the artist pages I've read (especially the musicians, who appear not to know how to cite anything at all) and it does no harm.

Anyfors (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have a lot of articles about recent artists of various kinds and their works, and we delete them. We don't care about what might "make it" or not, that's not our job, we're not a crystal ball.  Otherwise, we'd just be 99% articles about shitty garage bands that noone is ever going to care about.  Try citing actual guidelines.  WP:NOTABILITY is one of them.  Wikipedia hasn't failed yet by holding articles to that standard.  Show me an existing article about something that isn't notable, and I'll tag it for deletion.  Accusations of religious intolerance is not assuming good faith.  I have repeatedly tagged for deletion articles for about Christian churches, charities, and bands.  I honestly don't give a damn what the article is about.  For crying out loud, I'm theologically hyper-liberal (I pray to Sophia, think heaven and hell are the same place, draw more theology from Philip K Dick and George Lucas than I do Martin Luther or St Augustine, and believe evolution is part of the plan for redemption).  Do you really think I'm going to be bothered by someone identifying as a Satanist?


 * Now, aside from paranoid accusations and a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about, do you have any actual reasons based on the site's guidelines why this article should stay? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I for one disagree with the deletion of this article because it is based on biased terms. Just because something is offenses to one person does not mean it's offensive or threatening for that matter-to all. -Nox SabbatumAzazm333 (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly, if the book were outright offensive, it might make it more notable. The Satanic Verses* is a notable book not so much for the content of the book as for the outcry about it and its perceived offensiveness. However, no sources have been provided to show any public outcry, any book-burnings, any complaints about the content of Hail Satan, which is one less way for the book to be shown notable.
 * * And yes, I know that Rushdie's book isn't about Satanism per se; however, it's the most useful example I could think of to illustrate the point. —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The attempted deletion of this page proves the Christian intolerance and hatred of the left hand path religions. To delete this page is a slap in the face for the freedoms of speech and religion. (l33tsamurai)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by L33tsamurai (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleting an article about a book of poetry is by no means an attack on the religion in question. Most, if not all, of the editors involved in the discussion would be just as eager to delete a book of Christian, Jewish, Pastafarian, or secular poetry if it was equally un-notable. —C.Fred (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, C.Fred. I'm compiling a list of actions I've taken against Christians, actually. But folks (folk?) with persecution complexes (complex?) will ignore that. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, Satanism technically isn't a religion, it is a philosophy. Ever Satanist has a different way/path, no two Satanists are the same unlike Christianity, Judism, Islam and other right hand religions. l33tsamurai  —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC).


 * Actually, that's an overgeneralization of right-hand religions. I'm trying to remember the exact quote, but basically, to get three answers on any question concerning Wicca, just ask two Wiccans. —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

JonnyDavidsonofsatan (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)keep! I feel if every hotel room can stuff a xian bible in every night stand in the room and can have web pages dedicated to xianity then Satanists should be no different, just because you disagree does not mean it should disappear. That is like a person participating in a hurdles race saying "it would be easier on me if you remove the hurdles" how ridiculous!! JonnyDavidsonofsatan (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)JonnyDavidsonofsatan


 * I agree that Satanists should not be treated differently and should not have the hurdles removed just for them. That's why I favor deleting the page: there's no reason to ignore the existing guidelines for this article or any other article on Satanism. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...
Anyone else find it odd that a bunch of new accounts are coming up after this AFD was started? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Reason" - It is because the Satanic community is coming forward in opposition of the deletion of this article l33tsamurai —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC).


 * "Satanic community coming forward?" No, Mikhail has enlisted his Myspace buddies to produce astroturf outrage.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.9.179 (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I trust the closing administrator can spot any reverse-WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, or anything similar that doesn't address Wikipedia's guidelines, and disregard them as appropriate. Nonetheless, I've noted the possible offsite canvassing on the main AfD page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's hope so. Anyone else smell socks?  Maybe it's meat?  Eh, well, we'll wait for more. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Not to mention intellectual curiosity? If one sect is allowed to delete the entries of another this will be a sad day for Wikipedia which up till now has become established as one of the best shared resources on the Internet. I strongly am against deletion of this article for the same reasons that I would retain the Christmas story or any other article of our shared religious experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corred (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Since March, I have undone the work of at least 19 different Christians (not counting anonymous vandalism on non-Christian religion articles), because their edits went against the guidelines. Take your bullshit accusations of sectarianism elsewhere.  "Freedom of Speech" is not an argument for going against the site's guidelines on notability.  Freedom of speech "does not require that a private, charitable organization like the Wikimedia Foundation give a soapbox to all comers. Wikipedia is dedicated to expanding access to the sum of human knowledge - not providing a platform for human freedom of expression."  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr Thomson you need to learn how to say things politely without the use of gutter language.Corred (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - No one should be able to impede an article on Wikipedia just on bias and because of their personal beliefs; this book is relevant to many people who partake in the occult practice and including but not just retaining to Satanism. It seems most articles created on subjects like Satanism are deleted, yet these articles are relevant and have a following of support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic93 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And you need to look at the previous actions of users and the guidelines that the article fails to meet before before making blanket accusations of sectarianism. It makes you look completely plain ol' ignorant.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If the book is as relevant as you indicate, then all you need to do is show where the book has been reviewed, discussed academically, or anything else that would count as significant coverage in a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm emphatically NOT a christian-- in fact I'm far closer to the author in question. I absolutely despise christians and christianity. But unfortunately, an obscure, new book of poetry does not meet the notability requirement regardless of its content. The author is attempting to stir up a furor about this and recruit other Satanists from Myspace to bolster his claim of unfairness. But unfortunately, obscure books of poetry are a dime a dozen. Let's see if this one is still around two years from now or if it's remaindered, out of print and forgotten in its (most likely well deserved) obscurity. If there's anything I dislike nearly as much as christians, it's self promotion. Good luck with all that, Mikhail. 29 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.9.179 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the Hail Satan book report page
I have read and understood completely the Hail Satan (book) page.

There is nothing inflammatory or dangerous in this particular page. While it may need the help of an expert in Satanism to bring it to life, this page need not be deleted on that account. This page can stay as it is, for it is a basic book report that has a positive light on Satanism, or at least neutral, and makes no attack on other religious beliefs. If an expert or someone who read the book a little better were to add input, the page would be better off.

To censor this page will produce an underground version of the same, which can't be deleted. Censorship produces an underground media. This happens without fail. Consider what happened in Nazi Germany once the fascists took control.

Like it or not, Satanism is not going away, and neither should this page.

http://www.myspace.com/kevin_magi_93 Kevinmzabbo (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Kevin Zabbo


 * None of that addresses the issue of notability. If you aren't going to pay one bit of attention to the guidelines (because your argument does not address THE REASON why the article is being deleted, it does not meet the notability guidelines), why should we care what you think?  How stupid do you think we are if you think we'te only doing this because we think it would stop Satanism or something?  Did it occur to you that maybe you could try addressing the issue of notability (maybe even looking at the site's guidelines), did you miss the big notice at the top, or do you have some pathological need to talk about stuff you are completely ignorant about? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * from guidelines Wikipedia:Notability - "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject"


 * from guidelines Articles_for_deletion - "Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette and "do not bite the newbies".

"AfDs are public, and are sometimes quoted in the popular press. Please keep to public-facing levels of civility, just as you should for any edit you make to Wikipedia."

See also: Guide to deletion Blackson (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Blackson


 * So you have looked at the notability guidelines. Now could you point to what part of the guidelines this book qualifies under?  Hm?  And who in the popular press is going to look at this AFD if they haven't payed any attention to the book to begin with?  And what excuse do new users have, with the large notice at the top of the page telling them to read the notability guidelines?  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

By allowing free access to information, the readers who have biases towards a certain field of information will show their ignorance and hatred in their own actions. As well it should be considered how the very people claiming that Satanic thought, or whatever that generalization encompassed by the term is irrelevant or useless, are showing their ideological bias by attacking another beliefs in the name of their own. We must ask ourselves, is there truth? What is truth?. There are many perspectives of some form of consensus reality we all share. If the search for knowledge and understanding can be likened to shining a flashlight around in the dark, why would one want to snuff out part of the beam of light?, essentially darkening the whole through chosen ignorance?. Please Wikipedia, recognize where the biases lay in this/any situation and don't let history be written by the winners, of either side of any ideological discussion, as it narrows the scope of any informational subject when two sides of a whole are deemed 'right' or 'wrong', especially one based on some particular form of philosophical ethic, morality, dogma and/or agenda. Please keep Satanic/LHP/'stereotypically dark'/controversial/non main stream spirituality in the scope of available knowledge on Wikipedia, otherwise, through the observed behaviour of the removing and censoring of said content, will show an intentional religious/ideological bias which would undermine the fundamental integrity of Wikipedia. -DL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.43.193 (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Satanic content as though it is a value laden word, it is a valid area of thought, practice and lifestyle that is real as the people people who think it. Wikipedia is an open source of information and shouldn't be biased by one portion of readers who happen to have ideological differences with a portion of the material.


 * The notability guidelines. Read them.  You're completely missing the point, and you're not helping at all.  I'm actually telling you people how to keep this article in place, and none of you are listening.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

*Keep*
Re: " | BEFORE YOU POST: Read the guidelines concerning this site's definitions of notability and this site's definition of reliable sources (to demonstrate notability). Ignoring these guidelines will not help any argument.  Wikipedia is not out to persecute any religion, but Wikipedia does not include articles on anything and everything. "

I don't understand how the determination is made that this book is not "Notable". I believe it IS notable. Just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaborose (talk • contribs) 00:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could try actually reading the notability guidelines to find out? Gee, naw, couldn't be that, could it?  I mean, that sound ridiculous.  Why would this site have notability guidelines if it wasn't to figure out whether or not something is notable?  I mean, that's just crazy.  And I believe you ARE wrong.  Just my opinion.  Checkmate and facepalm.Ian.thomson (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

'Keep this just goes too far; christians believe they have a "right" to oppress modern Satanism and religions of the Left Hand Path for one reason or another. whether its because they feel it is "Gods Will" or "an act of good nature", or even so far to "prevent others from tumbling across these texts". these acts of oppression have gone on long enough and they have taken this too ridiculous lengths. much as how most religious use the web to spread the readings to others who do follow similar beliefs. and when someone posts information and/or text on wikipedia for easy access for people looking for such information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randal T. Collier-Ford (talk • contribs) 04:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Keep" I believe every one has the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Closed minded people should be enlightened and truth should be available for evey one to make up their own minds about these topics. What next? A witch hunt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.89.9 (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My opinion about this, that the book itself is a nice addition to Satanic and or Occult poetry.Why not keep the wikipage as a great support for people who want to know about this genre and book. As I write in the same flow of mind, I reckon this could possibly happen to one of my books in the future. My name is Fleur Isabel Roosenstein. And I am standing up to this insanity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.149.56.13 (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

KEEP! Just because people are reading this it does not mean they are bad people or going even join'the darker side' or anything. People can make up their own minds and views. DO NOT DELETE.


 * 'Keep - I'd say it's pretty unethical to try to minimize one religion on this site unless you make it a point to minimize all of them. I think the people who don't make demands that articles about the bible be deleted are being good sports. But if an article relating to the Church of Satan or Satanism in general is deleted, then so should the articles on Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, Paganism, etc. If this site is going to be a legitimate online encyclopedia, then it can't be done half-assed. That means no censorship. If an article on this site offends someone he's perfectly free to not read it.


 * "Keep" - Knowledge is power. LuthienTyranea (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

All of you, read the notability guidelines. All of you have completely missed the actual reason why the article is being deleted, none of you have addressed that, your arguments are completely empty and invalid. Study up, and come back when you actually have half an idea why the article is being deleted. Then you can attempt to demonstrate, using reliable sources, that the book is notable. Until then, your comments will be ignored. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd note that probably about half of all wiki articles have no sources. Someone should merely build a website mentioning this book so that it appeases the fundamentalists hellbent on making sure their kids don't access "evil" material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.233.143 (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Other stuff exists. Whether or not other comparable subjects have articles is not reason to keep or delete an article. And again, nothing's stopping you from starting your own website with your own guidelines about what can be posted there. —C.Fred (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, regarding your choice of the word "fundamentalist." Point to one.  Please.  I have yet to see anyone that qualifies as conservative in any fashion in this discussion.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ian I would like to say that I am a conservative and a Satanist..why does that matter to you or what it even has to do with your arguements is moot!..What does matter is that you are screaming for "notability" on something that is a persons own interpretation and therefore is regarded as "art expression" to which thousands of other persons have also contributed over thousands of years..Blake, Oscar Wilde, Fredrick Nietzsche to name a few..Wikipedia must delete them all as well for they are also have publications on this site..for example "Human, All too human" by Fredrick Nietzsche has its own page as does "A picture of Dorian Gray" by Oscar Wilde also "The Last Supper" by DaVinci has its own Wiki page...so you are saying these works of art must be deleted as well?.. while you are at it you can have wikipedia delete anything published by any other author including the Bible!..I say leave people to their artistic interpretations regardless of how "you" feel about it as independent thought is a rare find in todays world...I say Keep!LilithbethMiller (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)LilithbethMiller


 * People keep accusing regular editors of being fundamentalists with absolutely no evidence. Wikipedia has guideslines that determine whether or not something is notable.  The book Hail Satan does not meet those guidelines.  There are no books, magazine articles, newspaper articles, movies, or any other media written about the book.  It is not taught in any schools.  It has not appeared in the mainstream media.  In short, there is no evidence that society at large gives a damn.  It is not my interpretation, if you can find some reliable sources that demonstrate notability, the article could stay.  Blake, Wilde, Nietzsche, DaVinci, their select works, and the Bible have pages because there are books, magazine and newspaper articles, and other media about them.  You can take secular college courses dedicated to them.  It has nothing to do with independant thought.  And I've reclarified the notice at the top to make sure you know where to find this site's definition of notability, since you obviously missed the big notice up at the top of the page.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Article on 'Hail Satan' is Notable'

The Article on 'Hail Satan' is notable. Why? It is an informative page on a unique kind of poetry that people of all religions would be interested in. Mykhailo Chornyisn, the author of this book, created a tome of Satanic poetry that is significant in this day and in days to come. Scholars writing on the topic of Satanism will find it useful to read about Satanic literature as a way to learn more about what it is Satanists believe. Literature as well as art is a cornerstone to many religions and defines much of what is believed and practiced. Therefore resources such as Wikipedia should make available informative articles on important subjects such as Satanic poetry, literature and art, as well as those from other religions and beliefs, so readers can have a variety of topics to learn from. I was very happy to see that an article on 'Hail Satan' was included here and that people would have a chance to learn about such an important cornerstone to the Satanic religion. As the founder and publisher of 'The Serpent's Tongue' webzine, I had approached Mykhailo Chornyisn last year and asked him if I could interview him about 'Hail Satan.' I found this writer and his work relevant to not only Satanism today, but to poetry in general, and I stand firm with this belief. The article about 'Hail Satan' needs to stay on Wikipedia as a valuable source to the topic of Satanism.

Marie RavenSoul, Founder/Publisher 'The Serpent's Tongue' Marie RavenSoul (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)'''


 * You clearly did not read the notability guidelines. It being art doesn't have anything to do with it being notable. You should also read WP:RS, because typically webzines are not considered reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep** Honestly, what might be garbage and unreliable information to one man, may be a blessing to several others. It would not look too great for anyone but for us believers if this page was taken down. If it gets taken down, that says one thing- Wikipedia is indeed sacrilegious and biased on situations. We should be able to keep this page- because it honestly helps so many people out.. Discovering history of it all, from a different person's point of view. If it gets taken down, I shall be severely disappointed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravethebear (talk • contribs) 03:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the biased thing would be to keep the article just because it's on a religious topic, when any other similar article would get deleted for lack of notability. I'm all for being unbiased and treating the article the same as a secular book would be treated—and deleting the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete** I don't think you guys are understanding the concept of notability. The article isn't being deleted because of it's content, but because it has no proof that the subject is notable as defined by Wikipedia standards. If you want it the article to stay, just simply find sources which prove the article is notable. Also, I don't understand from where these allegations of censorship by Christians are coming, but I have yet to find any of the persons suggesting deletion to argue it should be deleted for dealing with Satanic material. To claim this article is being censored, or that it notable for the sheer reason it exists, shows a deep ignorance of Wikipedia guidelines. I'm a Luciferian and I suggest a deletion of this article because it does not meet the notability guidelines. The creation of this article was premature for Wikipedia. You are, as others have stated, welcome to write an article for the book outside of Wikipedia. The best course of action for those who would like to keep this article is to wait several months until the subject (the book in this case) becomes more notable; then recreate the article on Wikipedia. Joeythepirate (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "'keep" The article should be kept: indeed, other religious books are detailed on this site. Either delete all of these or keep this one too; otherwise you are discriminating. Satanism exists whether people like it or not. By deleting the book you cannot delete the religion. I cannot see why people are getting worked up about a simple article that describes a book: get a grip!! Pammycad (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep* You people need to open your eyes and realize that this article is fine just the way it is. You think of all the negative things about the devil. To some, it is a God and they worship him. It's like you're putting down someone else's religious beliefs. How dare you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murze (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And another person with no clue what's going on. You've been lied to by Mykhailo.  The article is being deleted because it does not have any reliable sources that demonstrate that the article is notable.  Religion has nothing to do with it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

celebratet media free speech monopolies
Δ the notability function of censorsip,and I find free speech violations everywhere, is similar to being in a social situation where a meathead idiot croowds you out of being even able totalk to the woman of your dreams and evetuallyhas kids with her and abadons them. this completly parallels what has happened here, like it is an issue of people magazine but whoever is in chage has no excuse to be a cockbocker "uh no sorry, its not "now" enough, were lookingfor something we beleve te masses would have liked less than 5 mintes ago (short sugr induced attention spans you understand) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.71.56 (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC) — 76.22.71.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Try English, please. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

–Keep!!... There´s no sense in deleting this? If there´s one reason you admmit as good, that would be applied to other books as the Bible... — 189.244.45.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The Bible, be it the Jewish, Christian, or Satanic Bible, meets the notability guidelines. Read them, read the reliable source guidelines, and look for reliable sources that demonstrate the book's notability. That's it. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP Really???... Delete something simply because someone else doesn't agree with it? I wouldn't have thought that Wikipedia of all sites would even consider this. Oppression is ridiculous, I choose not to read about things that dont interest me, or that I may not agree with.... Not try to have them deleted in a fit of rage!!!! Wow.... Whats next??.. All the metal pages and horror movies??.. Why dont we just keep Wikipedia a place to go to learn about Jesus, sitting on clouds strumming a harp, and those stupid veggie tales things!?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.246.191 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

bottom line: deleting anything legal of of the internet is a violation of free speech, it was probably one way for any author to create a website in a scholarly atmosphre that may link to but not direcly sell their work. you have a shoddy website if you think you can boss people around like that, and destoy their lives' work transparancyof facebook and cheezines of myspace concept aside this is a serious wesite and namby pamby censorship isa volation of the first amendment just as the war on drugs violates the religion of all (psychedelicsites on here. you seem to suport quackery and less than the whole truth, I bet you arerun b a cia info collection branch, like th other two sites


 * Wikipedia was created to serve a specific function; the concept of free speech is irrelevant because Wikipedia wasn't created to serve that purpose. Perhaps it might be easier to understand with an analogy. Let's say, there is a wiki site created for visitors to post articles related to dogs. Then one day, a user posts an article on how to play the piano. The article about the piano has no relevance to site specifically made for dogs, so the article rightfully should be removed from the site. Being a wiki site DOES NOT mean that any article created should stay on the site. The Hail Satan (book) article does not meet the notability guidelines Wikipedia has set for all articles, and as such the article rightfully does not belong on Wikipedia. Joeythepirate (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Amend Wikipedia Guidlines to Reflect Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion
Summary-I strongly protest deleting the Hail Satan Page. because it is against the principles of Wikipedia, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion.

I normally do not get involved in such squabbles because my primary work is literary. First let me state that I am not a satanist. I am a Thelemite. My principles may be stated in four words. Do What Thou Wilt. It is my will to help preserve Wikipedia as one of the foremost forums of Freedom in the world because that freedom upon which it was founded is under attack. I have received a personal appeal to intervene. I do not do so lightly I take this very seriously. After having read Mr Thomson's legalistic jargon I realized this is a very immature person who is on a personal crusade for private reasons which are not even related to his stated purpose. Mykhailo Chornyisyn on the other hand is very serious in his work. He believes very sincerely in what might be considered by some to be contrary to the Judaeo Christian mainstream. But think a minute are we like those who cried out for death for Salmon Rushdie because they disagreed? Or are we carrying on in the finest traditions of a free people to practice our religion and express our opinions freely? Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression is rather new where Mr Chonysyn comes to us from. It would be an outrage against the principles of Wikipedia to allow Mr. Thomson to prevail. All lovers of Wikipedia and of the principles of Freedom understand that we do not have to always agree with each other but it is very important that everyone has a chance to bring his ideas forward and present them in a medium such as Wikipedia. This is called Freedom of Expression in the noblest sense of the word. How will you ever know what Freedom of Religion means if you squash debate. If we all band together that is all of us who love Freedom, we will carry the day and Mr Chornyisyn will get his opportunity for Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression in the truest sense of the word. This is what I believe is the most important point for consideration. Do not delete a work just because you may not agree with the author but rather instead if you are intellectually honest behave in the finest tradition of freedom and present ideas of your own. Then when you have presented your ideas in a free forum the rest of the contributors to this medium will be better able to decide whose ideas represent truth and who is just hiding behind some legalistic jargon to frustrate the desires of what I believe were the principles of the founders of Wikipedia and the majority of it's users and contributors. I am proud to cite my source on this fourth of July weekend to be the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Let us all remember that those who fought and died to make us free desire for us to justify their sacrifice by returning to the principles of Freedom and to return to a leadership role in the Free World and on the International forum of the Internet and Wikipedia. Finally if Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression do not meet Wikipedia guidlines as MR Thomson suggests then it is time to amend the guidelines to reflect our proud adherence to these principles which have made this forum possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corred (talk • contribs) 09:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my will to help preserve Wikipedia as one of the foremost forums of Freedom in the world -- but Wikipedia is not in any way a WP:FORUM, and attempts to use it as such are and will be regularly rebuffed. There is no freedom of speech, religion, or expression on Wikipedia; we don't care and don't want to hear about your personal opinions -- they have no place here; and our personal opinions about the contents of a book have no bearing on whether we consider the book an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "a personal crusade for private reasons which are not even related to his stated purpose" - Assume good faith is one of the principles this site was founded on. Free speech is not, Democracy isn't either.  As much as I value the right to free speech and the right to vote, those are things relating to governments, not private encyclopedias.  Enforcing unnecessary government standards on well-behaved private institutions is oppression.  For the government to say Wikipedia must put something on here would allow them to turn this into a propaganda machine.  YOU are the one trying to oppress free speech.  You are welcome to talk about the book elsewhere, but for you to stomp on this site's guidelines is nothing but you trying to oppress Wikipedia's free speech.  If you don't like our guidelines, like WP:NOTABILITY, you are free to leave.  Honestly, I wish people like you would see past Blackson/Mykhailo's childish lies on facebook, find some goddamned sources that demonstrate notability, and bring them in here, because it would get this over with quicker, and I wouldn't have to see sheeple cluelessly wandering in here, blathering and gibbering about things they don't know understand, only making fools of themselves.  So my private reasons in addition to my stated purpose?  To never have to see this peanut gallery anymore.  I don't care if the article stays or not, but I will stay until it complies with the guidelines, if that means it gets deleted, or if that means it gets proper sources.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - people fear what they don't understand. Embrace it was pacify your shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massaker IK (talk • contribs) 09:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Keep"

Keep Freedom Of Speech On The Internet--If You Delete This Page,You ARE censoring a human thought Satanic CorpseSataniccorpse666 (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep** The sole form of Satanism is based on intelligence. I am taking serious research of satanism, since I belong to Ordo Serpentis. If this article with all links of it are to be deleted, a great part of Satanism as an art will be ripped away from all those not yet met with it. I believe that people shall know about both God and Satan. Ergo, this article is not just relevant for Satanists, but for Christians too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KazamaSharingan (talk • contribs) 11:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not that any of you are going to pay any attention, but new comments go at the bottom, and the article is being deleted because it lacks reliable sources (you can read the guidelines for reliable sources here) that show that the book is notable (you can read the guidelines for notability here). If you want the article to not be deleted, you have to bring in sources that show the book is notable.  Freespeech is a standard to hold governments to, telling Wikipedia (a private institution) that it must include the article is hindering Wikipedia's right to free speech.  You have been lied to by the author of the book to act as advertising agents.  You are being used as puppets, and nothing more.  Not that any of you three are going to pay attention. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to nit-pick Ian, free speech is an absolute non-issue here. The 'puppets' you refer to are severely misguided in mentioning it, but so are you in trying to reverse the argument and claim Wikipedia's right to free speech.  I appreciate that perhaps you are attempting to reach these people on a level they might understand, even if incorrect, and yes Wikipedia cannot be forced to host content it does not wish to.  But this is about the WMF's right to do as they please with their own property (i.e. the servers) and not a matter of free speech at all.  I think it would be better to simply stick to the facts in this discussion.  AJ  Cham  15:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Once and for all
I have !voted to delete this article, and I am not, have never been, and never will be a Christian, Jew or Moslem. I am a person with a religion that is not from the Abrahamic tradition. I think the Satanic Bible should have a place on Wikipedia, as should Satanism. I think it is too early for this book. That it is connected with Satanism is totally irrelevant. If the notability of the book can be established to a standard acceptable to Wikipedia, I will quite happily support its retention. Peridon (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

KEEP: This is christopher, I Believe in freedom on speech, expression and religion. No one should have a say about what can and cannot be posted on this. If no one is getting hurt from this it should remain on...People have the right to know things no matter what others think. If someone wants to know about the truth behind Satanism they have the right to do so. If this annoys any of you christains take it up with me, SatanicSorcerer666@yahoo.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.127.156 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * New stuff goes at the bottom, moving your comment without moving your signature is deceitful because it makes it look like someone else's comment. The article has already been deleted, and despite the lies you've been told by Mykhailo, it had nothing to do with religion. Read the notice at the top, it was deleted because there was no evidence the book was notable. Free speech is a standard the American government is held to, not private institutions like Wikipedia. Deleting this advertisement article does not hinder the practice of Satanism. Wikipedia has a right to decide what content is notable enough to be included because of the same free speech rights that protect the book Hail Satan. Wikipedia has as much a right to not have its standards bent for a religion as that religion's followers have a right to practice. And for the record, only two of the editors here identify as Christian, I am far more strict on my fellow Christians, and I can't find any evidence of favoritism on the part of the other editor. Your assumption that this article was put up for deletion for religious reasons is at best misinformed, if not paranoid and bigoted. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing but iso elitists to asist me to be the best most INFORMED I VERY WELL WILL?CAN BE...YOPU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.193.233 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ... What? The article has already been deleted, you're a bit late. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)