Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illuminates of Thanateros
- 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 keep. W.marsh 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Illuminates of Thanateros[edit]
del one huge self-promo of a neo-occultism based on self-published sources. HUGE problems with verifiability. What is more, I suspect a walled garden of the whole category:Chaos magic `'mikkanarxi 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the IOT is as notable in the field of chaos magic as Ordo Templi Orientis is in the field of magick, —Hanuman Das 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on what are you basing your assertion of self-publication? Carroll's books are published by Weiser Books, arguably the most discriminating and reliable publisher in the occult field, and Hine's books are published by New Falcon Publications, a newer press but one with a good reputation. Neither are vanity presses, print on demand or any other such thing. I recommend that you withdraw your nomination because it is based on a false assumption. —Hanuman Das 01:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Self-published" means here that the only source of info is the illuminates themselves, without independent third-party evaluation. `'mikkanarxi 01:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - As per Hanuman Das. The IOT is almost 30 years old, and it was the foundation of the chaos magic movement. I also don't see where you're getting the walled garden idea from. Chaos magic is the exact opposite of that, and anyone can jump into it at any time, from any background, and bring that vitality into the mix. --Tsuzuki26 01:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I believe the reference I have added to the article provides independent verification. If it is a walled garden, it's a pretty big one. Many users have contributed to the article over a space of three years. Mallanox 01:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The IOT Pact is a well established group. Is it merely coincidence that there seems to be an awfully lot of chaos magic related articles being submitted for deletion lately? - WeniWidiWiki 02:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I would generally make coments about this and why it needs to be kept. In this instance I don't think it is needed, it is self explanatory. I just think AfD's are being thrown up too easily by just anyone with no concept of the articles they apply them too. The Jan Fries, Phil Hine, Ian Read (musician) and Peter Carroll's ones spring to mind this week alone. It's getting rediculous! Wikipedia is here for information and thus for further investigation! Is it that idfficult to comprehend? If an article is deleted it cannot be expanded on ot make it better! Add a template stating it needs to be worked on than delete it. Getting tired of this. FK0071a 09:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, but the "walled garden" concern needs to be taken seriously. The articles in question should make very clear when they are reporting self-published material. Hype like "most influential and respected" etc. should be removed on sight. dab (𒁳) 11:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- del walled garden, indeed. I am a bit slow on this, but even to a beginner, the "verifications" lead to other authors verifying each other. All info within this socalled Pact is secret, we assume? Who is supplying the info? Participants to closed meetings? Any factual information in "clubbish" sites always gets called "vandalism" while other obvious fallacious statements remain protected by a few who seem to have more than a passing interest. see starwood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.130.75 (talk • contribs)
- I guess academia must be a walled garden too. Scholars works are always "verified" by reference to the works of other scholars. I know what I am, but do you know what you are? —Hanuman Das 06:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, rather than move this elsewhere, here I will respond. I state that the map region Chaos Magic exists regardless, and wiki should reflect this fact. This will apply to a sub-terrain of factual information regarding organizations, and prominent practitioners, including those who exemplify the various arch. There will always exist variations on the meme-space vis a vis each of our maps; wiki functioning as the meta, leading to disagreements, and then along to thoughtful editing. Here our fact-maps merge, on this we will all agree. Tone down the bad faith nominations, they do not play well with others. Gift some work on content and style. Someone should mention humour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.130.75 (talk • contribs)
- 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.