Talk:The Satanic Scriptures

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Left Hand Path work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

I'm new to editting Wikipedia articles, but such a book of importance to both true Satanists and CoS members alike deserves an article, even if it's but a mere stub. Hopefully, one more qualified on this can improve it. Darkahn 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting Deletion

"The Satanic Scriptures" is is an important book to Satanists and Church of Satan members alike. It is considered a necessary book (upon its release), and falls in the category of all the other books relevant to the CoS with articles on them. As the book can be considered an important religious writing, and has already been "published" (but not actually released, though it is "finished" from what I understand, as several people claim to have already read it), I believe it falls in the line of notability. Darkahn 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the the book is, as of yet, unpublished. At the very least, it violates the not yet published books criteria. Since it is not available in more than a dozen libraries or catalogued in the Library of Congress, it also violates the threshold standards. -- 129.19.93.1 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your points. However, it is not as if the book isn't coming out for another fifty years; is it really worthwhile to delete its article, when it'll just be remade in about a month? It seems counter-productive. Nonetheless, if it has to be deleted and recreated in about a month's time, I suppose that's the way it has to be.

Regardless, I still disagree. The book has an ISBN number, though (obviously) is not in any libraries, as it is unreleased. The author is the High Priest of a professional and worldwide religious organization (not some fraternity cult) and thus the book is by a historically notable individual (not a name plastered throughout the history books, though every bit as notable as Anton LaVey). Furthermore, unless I'm reading this wrong, "prod" is not to be re-added in case of removal (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Conflicts).Darkahn 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a clear violation of the guidelines for book entries. I am nominating it for speedy deletion. 71.229.202.109 06:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny why only anonymous IP addresses are showing up. While I know I must assume good faith, please understand my paranoia, User:71.229.202.109, when I see that this is your only contribution to Wikipedia on that particular user-IP. Nonetheless, as I stated on the very top of the discussion page, I'm new at editting articles, so I apologize if it reads like an advertisement; however, to me, it doesn't. Also, why nominate it for speedy deletion if it's spam, but then say it's in violation of the guidelines for book entries? It has an ISBN number and is written by a historically noteworthy individual. If the article must be deleted simply because the book won't be released by Walpurgisnacht, then I'd understand.

Care to contribute to the article, which is going to exist either way because it is a major religious writing in Satanism, or even give suggestions, rather than just try to have it deleted? Also, having read the criteria for speedy deletion linked to:

"Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. If a page has previously gone through a deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion."

I fail to see how this is blatant advertising. Not only am I not affiliated (nor do I even know) with the author, or the publisher, I am also not affiliated with the Church of Satan (I'm one year too young); as such, I couldn't possibly accurately advertise for this book. Secondly, I have left out several key details which are nothing BUT advertisement. (If I had mentioned the price, and the pre-ordering for the book, then THAT would undoubtedly make it advertisement, in my mind.) If it does read like an advertisement, then why not offer me suggestions or contribute to the article? It already has far more information than several articles for Anton LaVey's books. Darkahn 13:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not blatant advertising. However, I'm leaving the Speedy Delete for the moment, as I'd like to see some sources as to the importance of the book. With independent sources claiming anticipation for the book, at least within the CoS, I think this would be a perfectly acceptable article. Also agree that threshold crtieria are currently fairly irrelevant. Jeodesic 14:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeodesic, I'm not sure the sources I could provide showing anticipation from Satanists would be up to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, if that is in effect. Obviously, the anticipation is shown on blogs, such as Magister Svengali's (who, to my knowledge, has read the book but has had no influence in writing it) (http://magistersvengali.blogspot.com/index.html), Magister Paradise's MySpace and PurgingTalon (http://groups.myspace.com/purgingtalon ) and the closest thing the Church of Satan has to an official message-board (http://www.satannet.com) + (http://www.satannet.com/lttd/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=395163&Main=287150), along with the news section of the Church of Satan's site itself (http://www.churchofsatan.com), Dutch site http://www.desduivels.info/bronnen.htm, the "Satan Speaks" messageboard for Satanists in the United Kingdom (http://p067.ezboard.com/Tha-Satanic-Scriptures/fsatanspeaksfrm12.showMessage?topicID=6.topic) (which is mostly uninhabited) and obviously profiles linked to the book itself's MySpace (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=123790331).

Rudimentary sources, though. I readily admit I cannot find any sites, such as Amazon, that detail the book, at the moment. Usually, they do not put it up until after its release. Also, the announcement of the book's release was a relativetly short time ago (March 2nd was when it was announced on the Church of Satan's site, although the book had been known to be in the works for years). Darkahn 14:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the co-publisher of the book "The Satanic Scriptures" by Peter H. Gilmore. I don't have a Wikipedia account and we haven't asked anyone to list this book, I don't know if that helps with arguing that it is promotional somehow. I will also clarify that the book won't show up on Amazon.com for a few months as only the paperback edition is being sold through major chains. Scapegoat Publishing is distributed nationally and our books are found in major chain stores such as Barnes & Nobles and Borders. We chose to do a limited release of the hardback to small mom and pop alternative bookstores and our website only. This may hurt some "threshold" to evidence the importance of the book, but it was a decision to help out indies, and not that the book couldn't do quite well in hardback form nationally. I can state with full conviction that it will be all over the internet for sale in October, and most online chain stores will have it for pre-order a few months beforehand. - Kevin I. Slaughter, Scapegoat Publishing

Request for Comment: Does Book meet WP:BK standards for inclusion in wikipedia

I believe that this book does not meet the not yet published books criteria or the threshold standards and possibly others, therefore according to wikipedia guidelines this article should be removed. -- 128.138.82.195 19:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let's take a look at the not yet published books criteria

"Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball articles about books that are not yet published are generally discouraged unless multiple independent sources provide strong evidence that the book is widely anticipated and unless the title of the book and its approximate date of publication have been made public."

This book more than EXCEEDS the guidelines set forth here. It is widely anticipated by Satanists and those interested (for better or worse) in the Church of Satan. Its title is released and final, and its approximate date of publication (Walpurgisnacht) is public.

The book meets both 1 and 5 of the main criteria, as my links have shown, even excluding the "trivial" links. If you don't understand 5, then simply re-read what I have already stated here and read up on him, as so I do not have to repeat myself.

The book possibly not meeting one or two of the guidelines does not automatically render it needing removal, especially when it meets others. While the book (obviously) is not published, there are exceptions, such as if it is wrote by a historically noteworthy individual -- Gilmore is, as he is the current High Priest of, again, a major religious movement; it is also an important religious text in true Satanism. The book is finished, thus is not in violation of "Wikipedia is not: a crystal ball". The book has an ISBN number (thus, partially meeting the threshold) although obviously is in no libraries, since it is not yet published. Darkahn 21:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comments are used to help resolve disputes instead of rehashing them. Please see WP:RFC. Please also see WP:NOTE for guidelines of what kind of sources are acceptable (forums, blogs, etc are not reliable sources). -- Craigtalbert 22:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read what I posted. Notice: "...as my links have shown, even excluding the 'trivial' links," and "Jeodesic, I'm not sure [all] the sources I could provide showing anticipation from Satanists would be up to Wikipedia's verifiability policy." I am well aware of WP:NOTE. That said, deleting the article is throwing the baby out with the bathwater if these sources are not up to task. Why not simply post the "Primarysources" tag? The article needs improvement, I have already admitted that, and I am readily working to do that without violating copyright, but deleting it just seems completely counterproductive. Darkahn 22:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable people can disagree about interpretations of wikipedia's guidelines, but in my opinion they are pretty clear in the case. As it stands now this article really hurts the reputation of the book. Reading the article I don't get the message that "this book is influental and important with a of good evidence to demonstrate it" adding a "primarysources tag" would just be furthering that impression. I think it would be best to wait until it's impact can be measured using reliable sources, as the information avaliable does not appear to do it justice. In the mean time, I agree with Jeodesic's decision, and will wait to see what other opinions the RFC produces. -- Craigtalbert 00:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Let me first address that I have offered independent sources demonstrating that the book is indeed influential; however, these are not up to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, as the sites themselves are either trivial or non-notable themselves, with the exception of the Church of Satan's primary site. Because of the relativetly recent announcement of the book's release, it has yet to be placed in any magazines or publications that track Satanism or the Church of Satan, and the book's soft-cover edition (which will be released on a far greater scale) will not occur until Halloween.

That said, Peter Gilmore could be considered, as Anton LaVey was, the (black) "pope" of Satanism, as he is the High Priest. If, for example, Pope Benedict XVI was to release a book changing or re-affirming the Catholic Church's position on several matters, then surely this would make it notable or at the very least by a noteworthy individual under Wikipedia guidelines? Maybe I don't understand them clearly enough, or see them differently.

Furthermore, I would not expect a massive contribution to Wikipedia by a large number Satanists (and thus, not a massive opinion to keep this article, or any article relating to Satanism or the CoS, for that matter); I was myself a bit shocked to see no article already for this book. Alot of us have had a rather bad taste with how the Satanism article was handled (as a democracy, which Wikipedia is not). Hopefully such is not the case here, too, and neutral observes understand the points raised by all opinions. If the only real problem of this book is that it isn't yet published, then obviously I cannot contest that, although I think their are mitigating circumstances. - Darkahn 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration

Owing to the fact that the book has now seen a general release and is now available to purchase both online and in book stores, the article now meets suitable notibility guidelines and has been restored to the way it was with additional sources and edits made to improve it and back up my restoration. If anyone has any issues with this feel free to bring them up here Devilmaycare (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for its restoration; I was about to see on restoring it myself. Darkahn (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance

Is this book even relevant to anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.2.165 (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction needed

This book isn't of philosophical genre, it's a sect or religous textbook that uses - inconsistently - others, yes, philosophies. --200.121.161.226 (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]