Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apocrypha Discordia

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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

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]

  • Comment This actually might be somewhat notable in the Discordianism joke but I'm not sure. As to google hits, it's not that simple: see how many unique hits you get for Microsoft (I get 136, YMMV.) If google's "of about N for TheSubject" is greater than 1000 then the unique page count can't be interpreted directly. Weregerbil 08:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Discordian Works now covers this. I said Keep before, but I think the combined article is a better way to go.JennyGirl 03:36, 23 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]
    • Comment - I have yet to see any reliable sources that state the importance of this subject. Wikipedia has notability guidelines. And indeed I alone do not decide these guidelines, which is why there is the AFD process. Also, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing your first article when that happens. Wickethewok 08:18, 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 - My two cents: The Apocrypha Discordia was created and evolved as a separate work to what's now known as the Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia. The title was influenced by the mention by Steve Jackson, not by the subsequent Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, and the research for the work itself stretched back to the 1970s. Although one of the extant three short pieces from Rev.Loveshade's work was included, that piece shares space with over a hundred other works - the primary ones being "apocryphal" but genuine passages omitted from the Principia Discordia. The Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia (although no doubt a worthy work) is entirely incidental to this Apocrypha Discordia. Keep or Delete the entry as you will (I would argue that it seems to have become rather beloved of modern Discordians--I receive fan emails at a slow but steady pace--and it is in the Library of Congress), but the work is wholly separate to the Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, and if the wikipedia cares about accuracy at all, it will not merge the entries for two uniquely different works. Drjon 09:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with compliments to Wickethewok's arguments. Vizjim 10:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wickethewok, though I can accept Dakart's argument of merging with Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, if the merge takes place just before that article gets deleted. Fan1967 14:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if we're going to be calling religions 'non-notable' and deleting holy texts, we might as well be deleting things like the Tattvartha Sutra and that ilk. I have never even heard of the religion that the sutra belongs to before, but I don't think we should go around deleting it! Voretus the Benevolent 18:09, 17 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 or if you must Merge with Discordianism. Discordianism and its subcomponents are a notable religion and/or cultural phenomenon. - CNichols 21:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Spinoffs of notable things are not always notable - fanfic for example. Wickethewok 03:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or if you must Merge with Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia. Both these works were called Apocrypha Discordia at one time, both have parts of them posted on a lot of websites, and both of them have parts translated into different languages. If it's notable enough to translate, it's notable enough to keep - IamthatIam 03:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Umm, anyone can translate something. The fact that something has been translated does not make it notable. Additionally, parts of them have been posted on a couple non-notable websites. Not notable at all... Wickethewok 03:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I certainly wouldn't call it "non-notable". It's probably a more viable form of belief than the Church of the SubGenius and I don't see anyone calling for that to be deleted. While Discordianism is relatively small it is still a valid and notable topic, and the Apocrypha Discordia form a part of that topic. ~~ Brother William 12:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Invalid comparison; no one is calling for the main Discordian article to be deleted either. This, by contrast, is non-notable. Ravenswing 13:40, 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

  • Comment - This is another aspect of the confusion over the two Apocrypha Discordias (the first now called Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia--see the deletion proposal for that entry). The 1994 reference to Apocrypha Discordia was to a possible work that Steve Jackson Games was considering, but never did. The first works to claim to be part of Apocrypha Discordia were written by Reverend Loveshade, and appeared online in 1995. (As proof, the dates on the index of both http://www.geocities.com/bloodstar84/pd_links.html and http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/7971/panpleasant/apocrypha.html will show these works were posted in the 1990s). While DrJon wrote that he had been collecting Discordian works for over 20 years, he didn't publicly use the title Apocrypha Discordia until he published his collection using that name in 2001. I think we should keep the articles on both works, or at least Merge them. But realize that some of the arguments here for DrJon's Apocrypha Discordia actually refer to Reverend Loveshade's work, Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia. 207.67.146.218 03:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Egads, you all keep putting up those links to geocities sites - give it a rest. Geocities could not possible be less of a reliable and notable source, so please try a notable source, such as CNN, Newsweek or online sources similar to Slashdot or CNET. I'm tired of these weak arguments backed up with Geocities. If this really was notable, you could come up with a convincing set of sources that didn't involve Geocities. Wickethewok 04:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response - I came up with an international print magazine as a source that refers to the importance of the Apocrypha, not exactly Geocities, eh?. Prenna 08:28, 19 May 2006
    • Comment - I believe the point the poster was making was that the Date Stamp on the article verified when it was posted. The Date Stamp is set by clocks based on International Standards, and can't be changed by a Yahoo!, Geocities, Angelfire, or whatever user. In fact, they have been used as evidence in court, and falsifying them is a violation of international law. The whole structure of the Internet is based on that--determining who first registers a domain name, for example. It's possible with the right program to fake the date stamp on an email; it's almost impossible to fake one on a website. IamthatIam 06:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response - Ok... thats nice.... I don't think how old this hoax is in under questioning or if anyone asked for proof regarding that. What we want is proof of notability, not age. Something can be a few years old and still be non-notable. Wickethewok 06:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response - So is that your problem: you think it's a hoax and are needing people to justify its inclusion? It's a pity you can't show some impartiality.~~ Brother William 12:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response - Ermm... yes. That is the long and short of it. We need evidence that this is notable. I don't know how I'm being not being impartial. The editors of Wikipedia are requesting verifiable information about this subject being notable, and no one has provided it. Thats the bottom line. Wickethewok 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment - Sorry to stick my nose in again. References to the work as a "Discordian New Testament" in print magazines, as cited about (off the top of my head, it's also cited in Kristin Buxton's the lifecycle of the principia discordia), general familiarity with the work by most Discordians (ask one), the fact that copies of the work are hosted by at least four major, separate Discordian websites (1 2 3 4), the fact that two different editions are in print (albeit small-press editions [www.cafepress.com/discordianist.16077076 1]2)... There's some stuff that's verifiable for you, and I think notable as well. Enjoy your bottom line. Drjon 02:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I was pointing out the history of the concept of the Apocrypha which, particularly in something like Discordianism, is an important thing. The fact that Steve Jackson created the idea in 1994 shows that the concept has been in the consciousness of Discordians, and non-Discordians, for 12 years. I was not attempting to write Rev Loveshade out of history or anything. Prenna 08:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia I don't think they each need their own article. DoggyGirl 06:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Merge - with Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia. While it might be premature, this has already been done. IamthatIam wrote the article Discordian Works and I added my bit. It leaves room for other Discordian Works. When one of them get enough to warrant a separate article, it can be taken out and made into a separate article. MRN 04:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line

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
  • www.cafepress.com/discordianist.16077076 - Trivial listing where anyone can publish whatever they want.
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?
  • See? Every source of proof you have provided does not qualify under Wikipedia guidelines as proof of notability. If you wish, you may provide additional sources and I will tell you why those are also don't work. Wickethewok 04:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apocrypha_Discordia&oldid=1137573208"