Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dystheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dystheism

Dystheism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

non-notable/original research ThaddeusFrye 21:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dystheism" is a neologism introduced by a professor during a lecture in 1998. There are no books or academic articles on this subject however, nor do encyclopedias of religion or philosophy contain entries for this term. This page is mostly original research and speculation, and includes a long original-research list of examples which contributors have felt might perhaps constitute examples of dystheism. There's a lot of work here, and the concept has some interest, but an article like this needs to document concepts that are already recognized parts of philosophy or intellectual history, not introduce concepts that have yet to be elaborated in print or other referred or popular forums. This article continually expands in a way that provides an exaggerated sense of the scholarly and popular importance of this non-standard term, and should probably be deleted if it cannot be trimmed to a much more reasonable size, sufficient to describe accounts of it which have appeared elsewhere in authoritative sources. ThaddeusFrye 20:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I enter a statement here not as a vote but simply as a comment. It's probably obvious what my vote would be but I will not muddy the count with my own entry.

  1. It has been claimed that no books or articles on the subject of dystheism exist. This is a misleading statement. It is true that no (or very few) books or articles use the word "dystheism" or "Maltheism," but the evidence accumulated demonstrates that this phenomenon has evinced itself in art, music, literature, popular culture, and in the more "serious" academic pursuits of philosophy and theology. The output of Blumenthal, Roth, and Phillips, along with the writing of Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel and Salman Rushdie, attest to the legitimacy of a dystheist point of view. It is valid to acknowledge the presence of this sentiment and to catalog it encyclopedically with a name.
  2. It is not legitimate to dismiss a word as a "neologism" based simply on its age. If this were the case, the majority of technologically-oriented entries in Wikipedia might vanish. There is a precedent for the usage of the word "dystheism" to describe anti-God sentiment, a belief that God exists but is not, as is (erroneously) assumed to be universally accepted, good. This article provides a cataloguing of this phenomenon under this name. The article was originally labeled "Maltheism," but this word was also cited as a neologism, with dystheism specifically chosen (by other editors) for its academic pedigree.
  3. The article has previously been reviewed by WikiProject Religion and given a grade of quality grade of "B". Far from perfect, but a sight better than many articles on the subject of religion that are not under this scrutiny as candidates to be deleted.
  4. The word "Maltheism" (which was the original title for this article) is catalogued in Wiktionary, and there is a Wikipedia user template for users holding "Maltheist beliefs". This in itself is not necessarily evidence of anything, but demonstrates that Wikispace acknowledges the sentiment of Maltheism/dystheism.

I hope the Wikipedia community sees the legitimacy of an article cataloguing and describing a verifiable documented phenomenon. Thank you all for your interest in this issue. Craig zimmerman 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    • it is misleading to claim that the "phenomenon" exists but has somehow magically escaped having a term coined for it. misotheism has a marginal record in major dictionaries, but the actual "phenomenon" is duly discussed at theodicy and related articles. The only thing not found in other articles is discussion of the terms dystheism/maltheism themselves, which makes the article a candidate for transwikification as a dictdef. "Dystheism" doesn't have any pedigree in dictionaries, and exists purely as a nonce-coinage in a 1998 lecture. "Maltheism" is a 1980s coinage of gaming culture and/or Usenet. dab (𒁳) 13:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per WP:OR and WP:CITE; seems to be OR and no sources. Wikipedia is not a directory for slang or neologisms. I feel bad deleting such a long article, so maybe trim per nom? NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I see sources. Concept seems to be valid and used in philosophic circles. humblefool® 05:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, concept in currency for millennia, if there's a better title move and redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 08:03 3 October 2007 (GMT).
  • Keep, I just stumbled across this article a few days ago and noted the AfD. There appears to be verifiable, secondary sources for this article. So, it meets one of the most basic notability requirements. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 15:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Google Scholar lists 1 item only [1], and it is not a peer-reviewed source--and even it uses it is quotes as unaccepted terminology, and without a reference, and without citing the inventor. The examples given show there is very little in the way of a unifying concept--most of the examples are not advocating this position, but using the absurdity of it to argue for atheism (or deism), or in some cases for dualism. This may be a real subject, but it needs academic references to show that it is referred to as such, and that this is the name,--and that the author of it is accepted as an authority.--there is no WP article on him. He is mentioned in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a supporter of the cosmological proof for the existence of God, which is something else entirely--that encyclopedia does not even mention the present word. The references given are much too scattered & nonspecific to demonstrate anything. Not everything discussed in an academic work is notable. When it is in neither standard reference works nor other academic articles, it is not notable. This article might even be considered to fall under g11,advertising.--there are lots of ghits, most of which come down to someone quoting us. Once it is notable, then it gets an article. DGG (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • {{mergeto}} (Theodicy, Problem of evil, Divine command theory, Euthyphro dilemma, Ethics in the Bible, dictdef to wikt:dystheism) per Wikipedia:Content forking. The material discussed is in itself valid, but the presentation violates WP:SYN and WP:CFORK. dab (𒁳) 12:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge I say keep or merge the article now that dab has deleted my misotheism article (which according to Websters is an actual term) and merged it to this one.LoveMonkey 13:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:DICTDEF: just because a word is an "actual term" we will not necessarily do an article about it. dab (𒁳) 13:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Misotheism is a different concept - that of hating the Gods. The concept that terms such as dystheism or maltheism are trying to capture is that of a God who is not good. I note that we have the Cartesian concept of deus deceptor as a redirect to Evil genius. bd2412 T 21:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
        • different, but closely related. These terms have so little notability that clearly they should be discussed in a single article. The question is one of titling. "deus deceptor" is a good idea! dab (𒁳) 12:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: As a concept, dystheism, the idea that God exists and is not altogether good, is a valid, logically sound position that arises repeatedly in historical contexts. Dystheism has adherents, myself among them, so it is more than an academic concept. Academics may not agree on the name, but the concept merits representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.254.88 (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Mohanchous 19:54, 4 October 2007 (EST)
    • Dystheistic speculation arises from consideration of the problem of evil -- I see no reason why this cannot be treated under problem of evil. dab (𒁳) 08:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but move to deus deceptor (which is currently a redirect). Cheers! bd2412 T 21:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • While I nominated this article for deletion, I should note that personally, I think the concept of Dystheism is interesting; however it just isn't a term that has yet been developed in philosophy or elsewhere enough to be included in Wikipedia. Any commentary on this subject, and every example of it that this article provides is necessarily original research, since virtually none exists in the world. Just because "dystheism" etc. *could* be used or even *would be a great idea to use* in describing some anti-God arguments doesn't mean that these terms deserve Wikipedia articles, and they certainly can't have articles which include examples and theoretical explanations that can't be found in authoritative sources outside Wikipedia (who's to decide what examples count as dystheism arising "in historical contexts"?). One possible way to save the article would be to rename it "Moral Criticism of God" without including the misleading implication that the terms "dystheism," etc. have gained very much critical currency (or the distorted definition of dystheism that adds "or may even be evil" to the definition provided by Koons). Such an article would still have OR problems, but on the other hand would be arguably justifiable, on the grounds that not all moral criticism of God takes place within the context of discussions of theodicy, etc. So I guess, I would accept either "delete" or "rename and revise", to avoid the misleading implication that these terms are in standard usage or have been the subject of significant scholarly discussion or debate. ThaddeusFrye 19:13, 6 October 2007 (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.