Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Pantheism

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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Pantheism

I am the author of this piece. I have already made a few edits to it to negate several of the comments about it. I will do more in the next several weeks to make it worthy of inclusion. The term neo-pantheism is needed to cover the versions of pantheism that are sprouting up and to differentiate them from the classical Pantheism of Spinoza. Most of these modern outlooks are atheistic and the use of the term of pantheism to describe themselves is consequently questionable as historically Pantheism has been theistic in its cosmic view. This is a point that needs more discussion. Also a bit more description of the present forms of neo-pantheism would be appropriate and would broaden its coverage. I did not coin the term but found it being used in Christian articles to describe new age viewpoints that are not theistic. This also needs to be addressed so those looking for an explanation of what neo-pantheism is can get one. I will need till the end of June to do the research needed to edit this to the standard Wikipedia deserves.I pledge am honest effort to do this. Commentors - please reevaluate July 3.

Reason the page should be deleted MAurelius 19:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for proposed deletion: This article is the hyped summary of a personal philosophy by a single individual, written by that individual. If this kind of thing is accepted, then everyone on the planet will insert their private philosophy into Wikipedia.

Outside of the WIKI entry, the concept is propounded on a set of webpages in related domains, all of them owned by a single individual, the person who authored the article.

It makes claims regarding originality that are not valid. Eg: "Consequently it [neo-pantheism) has a much broader base than most Pantheisms in that it is a composite of many prevailing philosophies both pantheistic and otherwise. As such, it is a more complex and complete philosophy.

It has no "notability."

• I'm inclined to say keep but rewrite. Google books suggests use of the term to identify a concept distinct from traditional pantheism from 1917[1], 1928[2], and possibly as early as 1908[3]. Ergo, this is not a new concept, or a single person's quest to spread an idea. BD2412 T 23:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Kudos for finding those quotes. However, adding the prefix "neo" to just about any trend in art or ideas is a very common practice and unless the addition comes to be widely known as having a defined meaning, it remains arbitrary, variable and idiosyncratic. The article as presented is not a study about the development of this term or of groups of people adhering to this term. It is the presentation of a single variant by a single individual, promoted only within the last couple of months by that same single individual, on a set of web domains owned by that same individual, and following the idiosyncratic definition of that single individual, eg to quote from it:

"neo-Pantheism is currently only applicable to the version being proposed to congeal these different viewpoints in to one comprehensive paradigm. Consequently it has a much broader base than most Pantheisms in that it is a composite of many prevailing philosophies both pantheistic and otherwise. As such, it is a more complex and complete philosophy.

neo-Pantheism is defined as a consilience of scientific, naturalistic and humanistic ideas."

Note the words "only applicable" and the expression: "the version being proposed."

This article simply does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for "notability." Wikipedia will become worthless if anyone can promote their personal philosophy here, regardless of how much it is known or followed.

MAurelius T

• Agreed, hence my vote to keep but rewrite. BD2412 T 17:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• The core problem is this: there is no discernible set of beliefs known (outside of that one individual's website) as "neo-pantheism." There are two modern books in print about pantheism - Paul Harrison's Elements of Pantheism and Michael Levine's Pantheism. Neither one even mentions neo-pantheism. Therefore this topic fails the "notability" test - there simply isn't anything to include in an article about "neo-pantheism."

MAurelius T

I am re-listing this AfD, as it has not yet been resolved BD2412 T 04:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The article as it stands now is flawed. Based on BD2412's comments above, there is a body of neo-pantheism beyond what is currently covered in the article. Accordingly, rewrite the article to cover the subject broadly. —C.Fred (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete like most "neo" isms, it hasn't condensed into a specific definition worthy of an article as far as I can tell. The article as it stands is borderline original research, if "research" is the right term for "intersperse grandiose claims about stuff I made up with vaguely related but legit-sounding citations". Opabinia regalis 06:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice- it's a worthwhile topic, but right now, it's an unsourced essay and there's no evidence of any attempt to fix it. BigDT 06:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per OR concerns raised by O.r. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 08:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:MAurelius -- Kevin 09:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, "neo" variations of established subjects need to be established themselves, not an excuse for an essay. Equendil Talk 10:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete subject does not suffciently exist beyond single sources. Too close to OR Ydam 12:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete an interesting read, but not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Having considered the above arguments, I have changed my mind - delete, then re-create as a re-direct to pantheism, and add a few lines citing the refs I found and explaining that some writers have used the term "neo-pantheism" to describe different approaches to pantheism, but that these uses are inconsistent, and the term itself has no set meaning. BD2412 T 16:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Re-create and merge to pantheism as per BD2412's arguments. Pantheism is a worthy Wiki topic, as is paganism. There are lots of neo-pagan, and neo-whatever ideas that should be included, but this article as now written doesn't merit a stand-alone: insufficient notability, in sufficent external support. Pare it way down, put the surviving lines in pan-theism, and then if the author or others want to expand it in NPOV form with proper referencing, it could grow enough to merit its own article. But I doubt that'll happen. Interlingua 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (merging anything that's significant and not already oncluded in Pantheism to that article). The subject is essentially just pantheism — the prefix "neo-" does nothing more than indicate that we're concerned with recent discussions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:07, 17 June 2006 (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.