Deletion of Satanic holidays

Comment: The section on Grand High Climax needs to go really as that appears to be 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

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 Why Don't You?|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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: We don't delete articles because they need improvement or expansion, per . We delete articles if they have no potential for improvement. The results of my Gbooks search proves that this concept is mainstream, passing , and certainly  - therefore Wikipedia can have an article on what  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:GNG||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)