Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discordian calendar (2nd 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   Keep. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Discordian calendar
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Not notable. This is a minor aspect of a minor cult. Although their calendar must be important to them there is no evidence that it has any importance in the larger world. The article consists only of material from primary sources, the Discordians themselves, with no secondary coverage. The fact that the Discordians have their own calendar could be mentioned in their own article with an external link to one of their sites which hosts the information on it. Jaque Hammer (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge information into Discordianism and Delete. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 19:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If content is merged, the edit history must be kept. Having your cake or eating it.  Pick one.  Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a merge and redirect take care of it? -Jaque Hammer (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't involve deletion in any way. If you wanted that, then you shouldn't have come to AFD in the first place.  After all, you yourself have all of the tools to enact a merger.  Even editors without accounts have.  Only come to AFD if an administrator hitting the delete button, to delete an entire edit history and rendering it impermissible to use any of the deleted content, is what you actually want.  And be aware that you can only pick one of the two mutually incompatible outcomes, per the terms of the copyright licences.  Uncle G (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to merge it into a section in Discordianism. I nominated it here because I thought the issue would be controversial. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that Merge and redirect would be the right move, good suggestion Uncle G. However I think Jaque Hammer was right to bring this her; it was a good faith move and led to your good idea - the fact that the original article is not formally deleted does not make this a fail-AfD.  Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  09:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I started a section in Discordianism by pasting in the intro of this article. Oddly enough the calendar was not even mentioned in that article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, Discordianism is fairly widely familiar to millions who have read the novels of Robert Anton Wilson, and Discordianism also exerted influence on the Church of the Subgenius, so although the membership counts for Discordianism would be rather low (assuming that "membership" even means anything when it comes to Discordianism), it's far from being a so-called "obscure cult". Second,  the calendar is part of the Principia Discordia scriptures of Discordianism, which have been widely publicly available for about 40 years (and was also included in the popular Illuminatus! Trilogy novels).  Third, if a Discordian calendar conversion program is a standard part of most Linux distributions, that would seem to indicate that it has a certain notability.  However, I do agree that the "schism" stuff should be cut from the article (since it's pretty much just a self-referential inside meta-joke)... Overall, KEEP. AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and do that. I can't really tell which parts should be taken seriously and which parts are jokes. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep inclusion in almost every linux distribution is sufficient notability as far as I'm concerned. And "cult" is a pejorative way to refer to a religion. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I meant "cult" in the sense of a small group of people intensely interested in something most of us don't care much about. I don't think the article does any harm, my objection to it is mostly "WP is not a web host."  I'm not going to merge it or anything unless there is a consensus to do that, which there does not seem to be yet. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for same reason as above. - so sayeth Lucky Number 49 Yell at me! 16:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for same reason as Denis Moskowitz. Jess Cully (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Informational comment: the page in question is the top google hit for "ddate". If someone discovers ddate on a linux box, wants to know what it is, and searches for it, they will find this informational page. That seems like a win for Wikipedia to me. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment All of the references about the calendar come from the Discordian scriptures themselves. The information on its connection with Linux, that being its major claim to notability, are sourced by dead weblinks at the present. I have a feeling that the calendar is notable (which is why I'm not voting to delete) but the article needs to provide better sources to establish this. Borock (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 11:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Reviewing the previous AfD on this article, I see that the question of whether this calendar has any clear notability as per WP:N was raised then. The crux of the current discussion seems to be once again about the notability issue, so, evidently, no effort to establish the required notability has been made or no sources could be found to establish notability. I'm not myself sure that the calendar does deserve to be included in toto in the existing Discordianism article - however, if it does, no objections to a Merge to that article. But there is, so far as I can see, no evidence of notability, or, apparently, much effort to even establish it. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep mainly as above. This is a notable concept with multiple sources and references within entertainment, culture and software. Ryanjunk (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Request As the nominator I am tired of watching this. It has been going on over 2 weeks and is clearly going to end as "keep" or whatever the other thing is called that means we can't agree so might as well keep. I would like to remove the section of the article that was pointed out as questionable and I can't do that while the AfD is going on. After that I plan to ignore the article since it doesn't do anyone any harm. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.