Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy of Satan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 - in amongst all the references to hellfire, death, destruction and...chocolate (?) it seems the consensus has damned this article. Yomanganitalk 17:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joy of Satan[edit]

Advertising for non-notable satanists. Leibniz 20:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • High Priest Joseph Swift, of the Joy of Satan: I can fill in a detailed article, in depth and with sources if I am given the ability to do so, and have those sections locked out to prevent vandalism
  • 666 - Mark of the Delete - So not-notable it's evil. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cast Ye This Article Into The Eternal Darkness - It was all going pretty okay until about two sentences in, with the thing about 'ancient astronaut theory.' Definitely downhill from there -- especially the part about their being persecuted by a conspiracy of Jews. Auto "Conspiracy of Jews" Movil 21:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sources. Delete per above. Ned Wilbury 22:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although wary of retribution from the hoardes of Satan and all his little Satanettes, I reckon they would cack their knickers if they met the Dark (Slightly Bitter and Unloved) One. And one last quote: "your brother sups cokes in Helsham, near Exeter" Bubba hotep 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The group's beliefs aren't a reason, a priori, to delete the article, so I checked the official website. It has a few hundred unique visitors a day -- not major, but not totally obscure either. But I'm going with the 'no sources' as well. Impossible to evaluate the claims in the article. Auto movil 22:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the criteria for "religious" outfitsestablishments anyway? I was trying to find it earlier. Bubba hotep 22:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd like to know that too. I'm under the impression that it's ultimately a matter of sourcing, like so many other things. Unfortunately, with a lot of genuine subcultural groups (including, apparently, Satan-worshipping National Socialists), not much tends to come up in the mainstream press, and it can take a lot of work for an outsider to figure out what's relevant and notable and what isn't. Auto "Protocols of the Elders of" Movil 23:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I only ask because there are a lot of churches which come up which I refrain from nominating because (a) it isn't easily discernible whether it fits into CORP or whatever, and (b) fear of being struck down by an almighty... no that isn't true actually. Anyway, if you find out let me know! Bubba "Satan's Shoe Shiners of Olde London Towyne" hotep 23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all ye who enter here. Thank God Almighty that there is a modicum of sense around this site. A user asked to please repost it after I'd deleted it and I hadn't seen the new revision until now. This is just wrong. If this group is real and they get an article, then I'll get to work right away on an article about the informal Sunday morning group I'm in that flies R/C airplanes, weather permitting. - Lucky 6.9 00:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Kidding about the group article. No disruptions of the site from this user.  :)

  • Delete "They believe jews are extraterrestrial reptilian humanoids who hate all other races." Nahh, that's just Don Rickles. NawlinWiki 01:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this is clearly a group that stands firm against the hating of other races. Um, wait a second -- other races of space reptile? There's a basic taxonomic issue here. Auto movil 03:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this article should be kept. It will serve as warning to our children about the effects of consuming large amounts of hallucinogenic drugs whilst rabidly scribbling pentagrams on scraps of paper torn from "101 Things To Do With Lucifer". Bubba hotep 12:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Exorcise considering the lack of independent sources and that one of the external links that is described as arguing "that Satanism is not nazi-ism," I'm going out on a limb an saying that verifiability and reliable sources is not satisfied here.-- danntm T C 03:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the name of Beelzebubba, DeleteL0b0t 04:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Keep I contributed to this article because of their involvement in the
scandal surrounding the National Socialist Movement, which was relatively

current. I also personally find their bizarre beliefs, hilarious! But doesn't it count as notable that they were involved in the resignations within the NSM?


Comment I don't believe it's advertising for them, it condemns them:)Merkinsmum 19:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this AfD should be copied to BJAODN after it closes. Too many good puns used here to allow it to waste away in an archive. :-p Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 02:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was the first article I put a lot into so if it amusing, please do so:)Merkinsmum 09:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Return the article to the dark mists in which the group operates as no independent investigators have seen them and returned to tell the tale. GRBerry 00:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you lot reptilian humanoids?:)I'm not really sure what you are after. [1] [2] Articles on the NSM/Joy of Satan scandal. The problem is no-one will bother writing about them unless they have an interest, then they don't count as an independent source to you. There are several anti-JOS sites by former members. I consider myself independent, as I am only anti-JOS in as much as I am anti anything I consider a controlling cult (this is mixed with amused fascination at the wacky belief systems people can make up.) Oh well I hope it amused some people like it did me:) -I think you are all part of the reptilian conspiracy and I will set my mate Enki on you:)(joke)Merkinsmum 02:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Husond, in the name of Belial how very dare you:) Delete them as non-notable if you wish but there's no question they exist and that their beliefs are as outlined in their website. Here is their annoyingly high traffic mailing list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Joy_of_Satan/ they also accept donations from their website. Their beliefs might be seen as nonsense but so can many spiritual movements appear if it comes to that. I know because Father Satan told me so and why would he lie?;):)Merkinsmum 04:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joy_of_Satan&oldid=1137959298"