Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discordian Works (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. It appears there may be content issues - these should be addressed using normal cleanup processes and application of Wikipedia's core policies. Orderinchaos 04:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discordian Works

edit
Discordian Works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unreliably sourced. Based entirely on original research. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 16:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Many of the votes on this page seem to assume that there is content on the page that is "worth keeping". However, we cannot keep anything on this page that is unreliably sourced. I have requested sources over and over since the last AfD (two months ago) and got absolutely nothing. It's as if we have made a page about some guy who lives in New York who everyone is making big claims about that nobody can back up with evidence ("Oh, I talked to him last week and he told me he was a tenured professor"). Isn't this exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia is trying to stamp out? Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This article is perhaps a little too verbose in the Loveshade-connected areas, but it is overall worth keeping. DenisMoskowitz 14:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything sourced/sourceable with the book on the subject and immediatly and without remorse delete the rest. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything that can be sourced to reliable secondary sources elsewhere and delete the rest. Primary - and biased - sources are entirely worthless in helping us decide on article inclusion. As it stands, the article consists of original research and original synthesis and unattributed material, which is not acceptable. If the article is cleaned up by the provision of reliable secondary sources that actually back up some of the claims made, then I will happily change my opinion to keep. As of now, though, delete. Moreschi Request a recording? 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are we going through all this again? Shii formerly Ashibaka tried this same thing before for the same reasons just a couple of months ago. That's before over a dozen sources were added. These include a commentary by a candidate for the U. S. Senate, Steve Jackson Games which published the most popular edition of Principia Discordia and popularized the name Apocrypha Discordia which led to both that work and Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, etc. The decision back then was Keep. Shii formerly Ashibaka then threatened to ignore that decision and redirect it anyway. Also I intend no offense to J.smith, but I'm unclear on what your statement means. IamthatIam 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no reliable sources for the claim that any of the books in the article belong under the heading of "Discordian Works". Therefore, all the titles under the article should be removed; and it should be deleted. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I am getting the impression this is more a content issue than a deletion debate. But, importantly, a keep result does certainly not prohibit another editor to merge and redirect this article with another, that is a misunderstanding of what AfD is for. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why is Ashibaka alias Shii doing the same thing all over again? He already nominated it for delete and the result was Keep. Then he threatened to redirect it which would really mean deleting it in spite of the decision. Now he's doing it again! And how can we do anything to the article when it's protected anyway? This all started when Ashibaka alias Shii made some edits to the article that were reverted. Right after that he put it for delete. This article was created because before there was a separate article on Apocrypha Discordia, Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia: The Tales of Shamlicht, A Discordian Coloring Book, etc. Should we go back to having a separate article on each one of these, which is how it was before? Or should we keep this article? I say for the third time keep! Binky The WonderSkull 18:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment appears to be one big ad hominem which does not address the lack of sources but rather accuses me of nominating the article in bad faith. Hopefully the closing admin will disregard it. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Discordianism/Principia DIscordia. This article seems to be poorly sourced fancruft and unclear about whether any of itself is fact. Several of these books barely exist; self-published books, especially via cafepress, are probably not notable in any way. Apocrypha Discordia, apparently a real book, doesn't seem to have enough material for an article. MrVacBob 20:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How many times are we going through this same debate? There were separate articles on all these works and they were combined into one article. Do we want to have separate articles all over again? And there are more Discordian works than just Principia Discordia. MRN 02:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are NO RELIABLE SOURCES attesting to the fact of ANY Discordian works other than the Principia Discordia. Any unreliably sourced, controversial claims on Wikipedia need to be removed! Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There aren't enough sources for each of these to have their own article. That's what we had before. Some of the sources are original sites but not all. There are surely enough for this combined article. Rev. Bootie 18:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, this vote casts a false dilemma. If there are no sources, that doesn't mean we split the article up into multiple articles. It means we delete the article. Also, if there is a single source for this article please point it out for me. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, I'm not taking sides on this third version of the debate about keeping or deleting this article due to my obvious bias. But as usual I can't resist throwing in a comment or two. Based on John Reaves' comment, I did read through the procedures that Wikipedia policy suggests be followed before this stage. I would imagine that these policies existed the last time this article was put up for deletion by Shiiformerly Ashibaka.

I would suggest that those involved in this discussion might want to look through Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion to see what is the recommended procedure, and if this was followed either this time or the first time Shiiformerly Ashibaka nominated this article for deletion. If you want more backgroup, you might want to check this user's previous attempt at deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discordian_Works_(2nd_nomination) or the request for mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Discordian_Works.

As a side note that people can very easily say is inappropriate for this page, I also plan to add a little section to my User talk page where I'll collect some of Shiiformerly Ashibaka comments about me. Reverend Loveshade 04:32, 5 April 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discordian_Works_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1070810106"