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.
It can be in-universe because nobody else takes it seriously. The links you've provided are not even close to reliable sources: some are admitted copies of material from Wikipedia etc. There are only two Google books hits for "discordian calendar"
[6]. These are about the computer program, and mentioned in jest.
Pcapping20:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
By definition in-universe is for something fictional and no mattery how fringy it is,
Discordianism is real and based on the list of sources in that article, at least some people take it seriously. -
Mgm|
(talk)23:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
You can't delete this just because it is a fringe theory. The google book hits are from ones that aren't entirely free to preview. For all you know they could spend 3 chapters discussing the theory. -
Mgm|
(talk)21:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Disproportionate coverage of extreme fringe. I'm reluctant to call any religion extreme fringe, but I think this is one case it applies. Even the main article discusses prominently that it has few adherents. I am not completely sure it is a real religion in the sense of actual believers. DGG (
talk)
01:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep Assuming that it's a real religion, which I don't think should be up to question, this is an important aspect of the religion:
Discordianism is already a rather large article, so it seems reasonable to have this as a split-out section. Just being known really little outside the religion isn't a criterion for deletion: how many people outside the faith are familiar with the
Bahá'í calendar?
Nyttend (
talk)
05:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep Atheists would claim Discordianism is no more or less made-up than any other religion, and since there is no one "true" calender and every religion makes up its own calender ("our" calender is based on Christianity with some Roman/Greek Gods thrown in), the calender of Discordianism can/should be covered as well on wikipedia. –
sgeurekat•
c13:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)reply
keep could be well referenced, easily sourced. The criticism of "in-universe" is meant for fictional works, not sincerely-held religious belief, so it's utterly spurious. Discordianism may have relatively few serious adherents, but it has a verifiable cultural impact. I see nothing in this article that would indicate a violation of wiki policy.
129.89.68.62 (
talk)
20:20, 24 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.