Talk:The Satanic Scriptures

message: 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)

message: "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)
replies: text:  Since the the book is, as of yet, unpublished.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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Contesting Deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Restoration

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Correction needed