Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discordian Pope

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP

[edit] Discordian Pope

I suggest the merger of this article with Discordianism, as it is quite illogical on its own. Not what most would call encyclopedic, and there is already a section regarding this on the main article anyway. --Sn0wflake 16:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• keep separate. The Discordianism artilce is long, and article splitting is wikipedia's policy. There is nothing illogical to have separate articles for separate subjects. And there is a huge number of fancruft in wikipedia that many people would deem eunencyclopedic, but fans have a different opinion. Mikkalai 17:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to a section in the Discordianism article, per WP:FICT. Not separately encyclopedic, even after a Catholic pope dies. Parent article may be large but this topic can't be expanded to merit an article... unless you want to list all six billion Discordian popes. Barno 19:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:FICT is a semi-policy, to bundle two-liners into a list. If an article is over a 1000 characters, then let it be. Also, the current article is incomplete, despite your claim, and I am even not a discordianist :-). Right now I am adding an important bit, but there is more of it. Mikkalai 22:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep separate per Mikkalai Kappa 19:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Mikkalai. All hail discordia. 23skidoo 03:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is long enough that a merge would make Discordianism even harder to read than it already is. DenisMoskowitz 13:22, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
• Keep Shoulp we merge the topic "Pope" under Catholicism? The topics are related, but distinct.
• Keep Discordian Pope is a distinct and self contained element of Discordianism that merits its own page. Besides, the Discordian page should be split into sperate articles as it is, why compound the problem by adding in more sections? brash
• Keep. I've seen the Discordianism page. And you, sir, are no Discordianism page. -- 8^D ^gab 21:02, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Comment. Discussions on whether a merge is necessary properly belong on the article's talk page, not on VfD. Don't saddle admins with the responsibility of carrying out such merges; regular users can do this just fine, so they usually won't do it anyway. Putting the vote on VfD does not give it extra legitimacy, and what's worse, it emphasizes a vote over a discussion to consensus. In short: don't put things on VfD unless you want them deleted. JRM · Talk 08:57, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Wrong. Even shorter: we delete "articles", not "things". Mikkalai 18:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, to be replaced with a line "Every Discordian is a Discordian Pope" on Discordianism. All of these supposed elaborations on the power of a Discordian Pope are entirely in the mind of the author(s); the Principia just says that everyone is a Discordian Pope, and empowered to make up their own powers. None of this stuff reflects any sort of community consensus (this is Discordianism we're talking about) or any sort of canon (again, Discordianism). Any article that suggests some sort of structure or consensus in Discordianism should be taken with a massive grain of salt. A Man In Black 12:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • All these "elaborations" are documented. We have plenty of fictional things which are "in minds of their authors", but nevertheless are in separate articles. Mikkalai 18:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge - This simple idea has been articlized into a joke. Put it into the main article where it belongs. - Tεxτurε 18:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with a joke? Many elaborate enough jokes have own pages. With all due respect, your suggestion is an opposite to wikipedia's way: articles are being split as they grow. Mikkalai 18:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.