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 of the debate was KEEP - the verifiable third-party print references are in David Gerard 11:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apocrypha Discordia

[edit]

Delete - <200 google hits, none of which can be considered reliable or noteworthy sources. Started as a non-notable usenet thing and never became more important. No claims of notability. Wickethewok 07:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, somebody's done his research! I think I'll add that comment to the discussion about Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia too. Apocrypha has a history, it's been around in Loveshade's form since the mid 1990s which is now the Ek-sen-trik-kuh, and in DrJon's form since 2001 or so. And really, Wickethewok, do you really feel you have the authority to declare a work as non-notable? That sounds like an opinion to me. Some people think Barbie is stupid, so should we delete her article too? JennyGirl 08:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; if "stupid" was a criterion for deletion, possibly, but it isn't. Non-notability is, however, a criterion for deletion, and this isn't notable. Ravenswing 15:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been done as Discordian Works. JennyGirl 03:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that you've never heard of a major religion like Jainism, which has millions of followers, does not justify keeping articles for every group with a few dozen. Fan1967 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I was making a point, anyway. We even have articles on hypothetical religions! Amounts of followers do not make a religion any more important. Things like this should be especially true for any religion, too, since I would imagine a lot of people would take offense to a part of their beliefs (or somewhat-beliefs in this case maybe) being called non-notable. Voretus the Benevolent 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the same as importance. Fan1967 18:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Many would take offense to their beliefs being called non-notable, but to date the fact that people might be offended at the deletion of articles based around their own pet causes is significantly absent from the AfD criteria or process, and thank whatever god we might worship for that. Ravenswing 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was commenting on Fan1967's comment at 18:27, not trying to make another argument towards keeping the article; I was saying that amounts of followers aren't directly correlated to notability, as demonstrated by the invisible pink unicorn and flying spaghetti monster, which both have approximately 0 real followers. Voretus the Benevolent 19:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. The fundamental definition of "notability," as we use it here, is "a lot of people care/know about it." Wikipedia standards of notability involve being in a bunch of libraries (for a book), receiving significant media coverage and/or sales rankings (for a company), reached a significant number of album sales or radio airplay (for a band), or with high Google and Alexa rankings (for a website). That there is not one shred more verifiable, NPOV evidence of the existence of Allah than there is of the Lint God that lives in my navel doesn't remotely make the latter an equivalent faith to the former. Ravenswing 19:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I was saying. Voretus the Benevolent 19:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't based on the number of followers. It's based on how many people are aware of it (which of course does include the followers themselves). Heaven's Gate had very few followers but became, poshumously, quite notable. FSM is a pretty famous joke, and qualifies based on that. This, on the other hand, seems to have few members, and is all but unknown outside the group. Fan1967 19:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this non-notable if Discoridianism itself is notable? Why would it be less notable, than, say the Church of the Sub-Genius, which also has "sacred texts"? There are religious dissenters in all religious groups, even seemingly bogus ones. KEEP unless new criteria for religions are developled; then you can delete FSM and the Church of Bob as well. Rlquall 21:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except the "sacred texts" for Discordianism are the Principia Discordia, which are not being challenged. This is some additional stuff that some (how many?) believe in and some (how many?) dispute, according to the article itself. Fan1967 21:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds remarkably like saying that the Apocrypha should not have a page of their own because it's "additional stuff that some...believe in and some...dispute". If you're happy to keep Discordianism why the problem with pages relating to its texts? ~~ Brother William 13:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite not being as well known as the Principia, mainly because Illuminatus was written before its creation, the Apocrypha is still an important text in the Discordian canon. In my view for wiki to give an accurate and clear picture of Discordianism it should have pages on the most important texts. Discordianism has grown beyond the many versions of the Principia and to ignore the Apocrypha would be ignoring a notable part of the religion. References to the text have been around since 1994 and some have even referred to it as "The New Testament" of Discordia (Konton magazine Autumnal Equinox 2005). -Prenna 16:11, 18 May 2006

Keep Subpage of discordiansm, WP not paper, etc. Suspecion that some delete votes are themselves jokes. But maybe Im a pink, or maybe I cant tell my postmodernist religions apart. JeffBurdges 16:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discordian Works

[edit]

Bottom line

[edit]

There have been no secondary sources presented to prove notability. By the rules of Wikipedia's verifiable sources, non-primary sources are the only ones that can provide proof of notability. All information presented here in favor of keep have been primary sources. There have been ZERO secondary sources presented. ZERO! ZILCH! NONE! Thus, there has been no verifiable evidence of notability. Thus, there is no way any rule-abiding member of Wikipedia could possibly vote to keep this. Lets go through all presented links one by one...

I concur, but then I did not use this as a Notability claim
I concur, but then I did not use this as a Notability claim
This site believes the book notable enough to host
I concur, but then I did not use this as a Notability claim
This is a translation into German, not original research (and not a machine translation). It's not notable that someone has translated 100 pages into another language? Nor that they believe it notable enough to host?
This site believes the book notable enough to host
Non-trivial publishing company which has published the book
I concur, but then I did not use this as a Notability claim
This article cites the work. That's notable.
This site believes the book notable enough to host
This site believes the book notable enough to host
This site believes the book notable enough to host. This is the main repository of Discordian works. Your insinuation can be safely ignored
This site believes the book notable enough to host
Non-trivial rework of the book into publishable format, which has been printed using Cafepress by a publisher
Non-trivial small-press publisher, using eBay to sell their quality hard-cover books. A Hard-cover and a soft-cover edition in print is not notable?
You challenge the statement earlier on that you are not impartial, but then you say "you may provide additional sources and I will tell you why those are also don't work". That seems to say that, whatever the evidence, you will deny it. Interesting. You also ignore the reference to published, non-internet works. Also interesting. Drjon 06:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit your opinion on this then eh? As I've referenced previously, international print magazine, Konton, has referred to this book as "the new testament of Discordianism" (Autumnal Quinox 2005). Perhaps you are unaware that life exists outside the internet as well. From what I can see you have decided that you will delete this and nothing will shake you from this decision. Fortunately other people are seeing this too. Prenna 08:37, 23/5/06 (UTC)
Wow. I must say I'm impressed at the lengths you will go to in order to justify your bias. What ever happened to Wiki's NPOV? You don't think it's notable. Fine. You also seem to be under the delusion it's a hoax. You're also selectively ignoring the non-internet evidence that has been referenced. You'd make a great Press Secretary if you ever get into politics.~~ Brother William 10:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your initial statement that the work "Started as a non-notable usenet thing" is an error of fact. It demonstrably did not start as a "usenet" thing, but as an internet thing. Your additional statement "and never became more important" is easily countered with the fact that it has been wholeheartedly adopted by Discordians around the globe, as demonstrated by the many different Discordian groups which have adopted the work.Drjon 06:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any earthly reason not to speedy close this as a keep? The references are in and they're third-party - David Gerard 11:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And note that I don't question Wickethewok's sincerity in nomination, but he does appear to be manifesting something resembling a slight case of WP:OWN on the deletion debate - David Gerard 11:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is over five days old. Closing - David Gerard 11:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More