Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legion of Dynamic Discord

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 delete. Sandstein 08:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legion of Dynamic Discord

In-universe presentation of an aspect of this obscure religion. No outside references to establish notability. Pcap ping 20:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My hunch is that this is unsalvageable, and, as currently written, it is entirely to in-universe and POV to be understandable by an outsider. In other words, not encyclopædic. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discordianism. The "in-universe" criticism seems out of place, as, strange as it may be, Discordianism is a phenomenon in the real world, not a fictional universe. However, the article does not demonstrate that this sect has independent notability from the mother religion, so an independent article is probably not warranted. gnfnrf (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment without respect to the article's suitability, "in-universe" seems misapplied here. To say that items of religious mythology/movements should be presented "out of universe" seems to imply you have to take an antagonistic POV: assuming it's pure myth first and addressing things from that framework. 129.89.68.62 (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "in universe" bit might very well stem from inclusion in the Illuminatus! trilogy. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial aspect of an already somewhat fringy subject. DGG (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom; could have been a A7(group) speedy. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 29 November 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.