Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradigm piracy


 * 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 since this term fails WP:N and given this lack of sources, the closing admin feels ok about saying the whole notion is utter codswallop. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Paradigm piracy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

term is a self admitted neologism, an attempted merge met with what seems to be a keenness for an article which seems to be barely-disguised advertising for a non-notable book with a similar name. Concept exists but not notable independent of other articles such as chaos magic. Attempted merges by several editors keep being met with reversion so this needs to be resolved via the wider community at AfD. Sticky Parkin 01:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As the page stands there is little to recommend it, plus the term 'Paradigm piracy' is not widely used in Chaos Magick, and is therefore not notable. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indifferent. I know of this term in occult circles. I've never heard of it called paradigm piracy though (more like Paradigm shifting; which is what its usually called). I think the material can be used in a different article altogether. Even still, we could merge whatever isn't at Chaos_magic and redirect it there.  Syn  ergy 03:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are many people who identify as paradigm pirates, but not as chaos magicians, most notably from the Discordian movement. Tsuzuki26 (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You say most notably but the only reference being used specifically for discordianism is one members website on geocites. The rest of the sources are primarily from chaotes (i.e. chaos magicians). Can you prove this assertion?  Syn  ergy 06:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true that the chaos magic movement and Discordianism are sometimes hard to separate, with many people belonging in both camps, but the notion of "free belief" has existed in the Discordian movement without any magical implications. As such, it deserves its own entry. Tsuzuki26 (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Find a source for "paradigm piracy" that we can all easily look up and verify in WP:RS please. For instance, there are no google news hits. so the likelihood is that the term hasn't been mentioned at all in the mainstream press. And it needs to be not a book by the person promoting the term, but discussion about it by a mainly uninvolved party and in a reliable newspaper or a book by a mainstream press, for instance.  Not only that, but can you prove this term is more notable than the existing alternatives to which it could be merged, such as to be part of the chaos magic article, or the paradigm shifting article?Sticky Parkin 12:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the section of paradigm shifting currently located in the chaos magic article is a far better place to merge, since it already exists. If a source cannot be found I'll confirm my position to merge. I'd rather that option than ooutright deletion of a clearly used term.  Syn  ergy 13:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I could support a merge for the time being in the hope that it would get it's own entry when more information is gathered. Tsuzuki26 (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete this impressive-sounding but, it seems, little-used name for a preposterously banal notion. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

comment to synergy Yes, that's exactly the problem- of course the concept is real but unfortunately all attempts to merge it into terms by which it's far more well known have been undone as they wouldn't advertise this book or promote this neologism. So something needs to be done about this page under this name, because it keeps being recreated. Sticky Parkin 12:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well thats why we're here now. To determine its fate. :)  Syn  ergy


 * Weak delete - Unless someone can find some proper sources to back this up - I want page numbers for those books, thank you. Black-Velvet  15:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - attested and well-sourced. Substantively nonsense, but it appears to be notable. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (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.