Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apocrypha Discordia (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 December 1.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 was Revert to prior version. Revert to prior version which passed consensus, and which does have verifiable sources (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apocrypha Discordia

Prod tag removed with no reason given. Article is about a book, but does not demonstrate why it is notable. I am unable to find any reliable sources in Google (Books or Scholar). Does not appear to meet the relevant guideline. TN‑X-Man 04:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge with Discordian works. I see no need to this to have its own separate article. --Flewis^(talk) 06:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Never having even encountered the word "discordian", I decided to investigate. Seems the star among this literature is some jocose artifact titled "Principia Discordia", written by some pseudonym. I clicked on the link to the article on him/her and there read In 2006 a copy of the first edition of the Principia Discordia was discovered in the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection in the National Archives, proving Malaclypse the Younger to be Gregory Hill. Such logic! I realize that "I don't like it" is not grounds for deletion, but vaguely remember having somewhere also read something about WP not being a repository for articles about stuff dreamt up by schoolboys one afternoon. -- Hoary (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but revert to a version from 2006 following the previous WP:SNOW keep from the last AFD. It would appear that at some point the article got redirected despite the AFD decision and was recreated without all the same sources in the version that survived the last AFD. The topic is notable. 23skidoo (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it's a sequal [sic] of a book that has an article! Of this one, there seems nothing to say. Delete, or specify the claimed "notability". -- Hoary (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: if being a sequel is a viable AFD nomination, then someone better nominate The Empire Strikes Back. 23skidoo (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I don't think Hoary was saying it should be deleted because it's a sequel, I think it was merely a note that the article calls it a "sequal". - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the history, which was apparently deleted as part of an article move. The version previously kept at AFD was this one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent sources. I'm flexible for what counts as a sufficient source for material like this, but there has to be something. DGG (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suggest this AFD be closed and reopened (if desired) relating to the version of the article as kept by the previous AFD, as the content of the article now probably does not match that which was originally nominated. 23skidoo (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability (outside of Discordian circles, anyway). Not notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2008 (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.