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. MBisanztalk 05:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. How can a religious calendar be in universe? I'm an atheist myself, but it's real. Plenty of gHits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. Try gBooks too. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 20:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Pcapping 20:44, 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]
Nobody takes it seriously? That's opinion, buddy. Also, I'd point you to WP:FRINGE. Oh, and there's 9000 other hits for you to choose from on google. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 22:58, 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]
Keep. This is oddball, perhaps, but it's part of a real (albeit not very well-respected) religion. Avram (talk) 22:16, 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]
There are indeed actual believers - read the appropriate chapter of Drawing Down The Moon. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important real world aspect of Discordianism that has ample notability. Remember DGG Wikipedia is Not paper. RMHED (talk) 03:22, 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•c 13:55, 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]
Keep Not 'in-universe', and notable due to ddate's presence in virtually every Linux machine. Alpha Omicron (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, googling "Aftermath YOLD" or "Bureaucracy YOLD" reveals that the calendar is genuinely in use. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 19:35, 25 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.