Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Church of Lucifer (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Greater Church of Lucifer}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Greater Church of Lucifer}})

Non-notable fringe organization. Lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. There is a small quantity of local media coverage, but it seems to be mainly about local events. Some hits on Google books, but those that are not self-published works refer to an older group of the same name during the 1960s, not this 21-century church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyerise (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Paganism, and Texas. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• For those wondering about the article deleted by the prior AFD discussion, as I was: Yes, it's the same subject, but the article is different, and also differently sourced. It's also a very similar nomination rationale, which is only to be expected if circumstances with available sourcing have not changed. Uncle G (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep The article of Luciferianism and Michael W. Ford mention this group. The Luciferian group in question has garnered not only local but also national media attention on two distinct occasions: (1) the inauguration of their Satanic church in Texas, which incited significant local protests from Christians, resulting in a modicum of national coverage; and (2) the conversion of one of their prominent leaders to Christianity, a development that has been extensively publicized by a Christian ministry with which he is affiliated. So, the article has some value historically. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The sources in the article all appear to be Houston-local. Please list the in-depth national coverage you assert exists. Also under (2), we can't use affiliated sources, are there third-party sources covering that? If not, it's irrelevant. Also please note that the above editor is the recreator of the deleted article. Skyerise (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Also, the fact that other articles include cited content about the subject does not support it being notable enough for a standalone article, so that's not a valid argument against deletion. Skyerise (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::There are several sources covered by international media like CBN, ABC etc. Also there's The Huffington Post. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::No, the ABC citation is to the local Houston station page. That doesn't mean the coverage was national. And the HuffPost article adds nothing new, it simply summarizes the local coverage and links to it. This is all reporting on an event, specifically the Christian protest against the church, not in-depth coverage of the organization itself. Skyerise (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. I am fixing the article now using more reliable sources. I fix a lot of articles at AfD but this one actually just flat out wasn't ready for mainspace. A bunch of claims were made about living people that weren't backed up by the sources cited in the footnotes. (Where did the information actually come from?) Wikipedia doesn't allow WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The best move would have been to draftify. Now that I've started fixing it I will try to finish. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:

• Keep -- the church has three pages in Massimo Introvigne's social history of satanism. That alone is sufficient to pass the GNG. It's also discussed in many other scholarly works on contemporary satanism, which you can see with a simple gbook search. Not least among these is [https://portal.research.lu.se/en/persons/olivia-cejvan Olivia Cejvan's] whole [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Greater+Church+of+Lucifer%22&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1742432932589&u=%23p%3DP9SE7BqoxRoJ article on the church] found in the OUP book [https://books.google.com/books?id=BFLNEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=satanism+a+reader&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiz3KzJu5eMAxWWxuYEHc99BP4Q6AF6BAgFEAM#v=onepage&q=satanism%20a%20reader&f=false Satanism: A Reader] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Central and Adams (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:

:Keep improvements done show notability, sourcing is solid. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Notable article, and per above arguments.JunkBorax (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: New sources provided are sufficient to keep this article. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Everything seems to be in order. But the article requires further refinement. If it is deleted, then when someone else recreates the article, it might be of even inferior quality. Therefore, I think the article is sufficiently good.
  SMYTI (tk|CNTBTN)
  16:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG per the discussion above, mainly thanks to the sociologist Massimo Introvigne who looks at the GCOL more in-depth as an organization that existed for a couple of years before opening a physical premises in Texas, and also discussing its North American network and influence on the group in Colombia. Also WP:HEY, as this was essentially a WP:TNT situation and has been mostly rewritten with many new sources added. The subject was a lot more difficult to write about than it may have seemed at first glance. My advice to the article creator would be to give yourself more time to work on writing new articles, so that you have enough time to look for books and other reliable sources. Also remember that you are looking for reliable sources that are neutral. So while I have left the Christian Broadcasting Network as a source in the article, it's obvious in this case that it's a source with a biased view on the subject. As it turned out, there was a falling out between the Fords and McKelvy and if only McKelvy is interviewed after the fact by CBN, of course you are only getting a one-sided view. So you can't just take everything he is saying in those interviews as fact. Also, make sure the claims you make in each sentence can be verified in the source(s) you are citing. In a few places it seemed like you had taken some liberties and were writing your own analysis of the situation, but a Wikipedia entry isn't a paper for school or an article for a blog or newspaper, and original research is not allowed per WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::Also wanted to add that the nominator made many helpful and constructive edits to the article throughout. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.