Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apocrypha Discordia (4th nomination)

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 merge to Discordian works. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apocrypha Discordia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This books seems to fail WP:BK. The sources present as external links do not stand up to scrutiny as WP:RS.

A brief process history: 1st AfD (2.5 year ago, result keep) happened before the WP:BK guideline ever existed. 2nd AfD (a couple of months ago) was closed out of process by invoking the 1st AfD. The brief DRV discussion (this week) supports renomination, so here we are. (The 3rd AfD discussion was a WP:TW error at the time of the 2nd nomination). Pcap ping 13:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, can't see how this is notable enough for inclusion. References aren't great either. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Principia Discordia as a logical adjunct to that work. However, for the record I have to state my discomfort at articles being disqualified for existence on the grounds that a guideline (not a policy; guidelines can be ignored) came into being after an article was created. In this case I happen to believe this item should be merged with the main book. However I urge my fellow editors to never use the fact that WP:BK did not exist when an article was created as a rationale for nominating anything. I do not acknowledge WP:Consensus can change on this issue because I feel it is more closely related to Notability does not expire. 23skidoo (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge, but I think the nature of the book is significantly different that a separate article will avoid confusion. As for WP:BK, the sources were never realy adequate in the sense of being indepndent of the group, but on the other hand I don;'t think it's necessary for the texts of a religion of similar movement to have such sources --if it is of importance in the group, that's sufficient, now as always. DGG (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm pretty confused by the original nomination discussion. The Bottom line section in particular was a fine demonstration (on both sides of the argument) how the article shows zero evidence of notability (according to WP:BOOK or otherwise). "This site believes the book notable enough to host" is Original Research, and it's making a number of assumptions. I'm mildly opposed to any proposal of redirect, and moreso opposed to merge, unless some genuinely reliable sources establish the text's notability (which is entirely possible, at which point I'll happily change my vote). -Verdatum (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, further, DGG makes a reasonable argument, so I wanted to respond to it as well. I'm willing to entertain the argument that religious texts of a notable religion may themselves be notable. However, the article itself states, "Although some Discordian cabals consider the work to be canonical, others deny the existence of any canonical document of Discordianism. It may be considered a sequel to the Principia Discordia, or it may be a complete joke. This dichotomy of religion vs. joke is a fundamental part of the book, and indeed of Discordianism itself." If it cannot be shown to be a cannonical text, then I don't believe it should qualify. I'm a big fan of discordianism and I regularly do, or do not partake of hotdogs on Friday as appropriate, but if you wish to have an intentionally disorganized religion, a possible concequence is that aspects of the religion will not be attributable to reliable sources, and thus, not appropriate for WP. -Verdatum (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Discordian works. The title of that article does not make any claim about whether or not the work need be canonical, so that resolves my above concern. The Discordian works article is not nearly large enough to need any WP:SPINOUT of minor subtopics like this text at this time. If either article becomes siginifigantly larger through appropriate content, then it could certainly be split again later. -Verdatum (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For whatever it's worth in this case, the Apocrypha, unlike Principia, doesn't have an ISBN, is not held in any library, and I was only able to find it for sale on lulu.com. Pcap ping 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an acceptable WP:SS split out from Discordian works, or merge into that article, rather than to Principia Discordia. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discordian works is a fairly short article, and is itself the subject of a merge discussion. How is forking something from there appropriate per WP:SS? Pcap ping 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Discordian works is merged into Discordianism, I think it best if this article is merged to there, rather than to Principia Discordia, which has independent notability. My point was that this isn't a sub-article of PD, since it's a separate and later work, not an appendix or a subsequent volume. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that Discordian works is the best merge target for Apocrypha, even if that article may be merged elsewhere later. Pcap ping 00:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good Pcap, you've convinced me, changed my vote accordingly. -Verdatum (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Discordian works. L0b0t (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  23:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as notability is not established. Boston (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment no objection to a merge into Discordian works instead of a keep, if it is done right. DGG (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment Here we go again. And just tonight, I discovered that my book was being cited in yet _another_ thesis -- this one a Masters. How's that for kismet? You guys keep deleting and undeleting and merging and fighting over this article, y'all hear? I can assure you, it'll make no difference to Discordians. HAIL ERIS! ;}P> DrJon (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis true, good Doctor, "all rites perversed". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Apocrypha has made a significant contribution to the religion of Discordianism. It has been referred to as the "New Testament" of Discordianism in publications such as Konton magazine, it has been translated into many languages, and the subject of thesis research by a number of people. The constant attempts to delete this page are nothing to do with notability but rather a mix of people with other agendas and people who think that notability is only established using a Google search. Prenna 00:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.141.49 (talk) [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.