Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pan-atheism
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 - deleted - SimonP 05:11, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Pan-atheism and Pan atheism[edit]
This has been on VfD twice before, it seems. The first time, tThe vote was Delete:3 Keep:2. The second time, it was Delete: 5, Keep: 1. It is not clear to me why it was not deleted after the second vote. Pan atheism (no hyphen) is apparently an article that was created to circumvent the first VfD vote. It was a duplication of Pan-atheism. The problem with this article is that "pan-atheism" is a joking or sarcastic reference used by its critics for Naturalistic pantheism. There is some suggestion that the number of critics who use the term is very small anyway, and that it might be only one critic. The term makes the point that naturalistic pantheism is actually a form of atheism. Therefore, it is at best a dicdef or perhaps a neologism. More to the point, this is not a topic independent of naturalistic pantheism, and discussion of the criticism of naturalistic pantheism that is embodied by this term belongs in that article. Delete. --BM 20:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, article was contributed by a notorious POV banned user, and has never been encyclopedic in any sense. It is a neologism invented by the banned user and is intended as nothing more than a POV attack on Naturalistic pantheism. Should have been deleted long ago. --Nat 00:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, neologism, nonsense, attempted fork. Wyss 02:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or possible Speedy as previously VfDed material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:51, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I can't tell if it was ever actually deleted; the previous deletion votes are a little confusing. David Gerard's comment at the beginning of Talk:Pan-atheism/deletion2 suggests that vote might have been about a duplicate article. If David notices this discussion, perhaps he can clarify as well as vote. In any case, the article should still be deleted. --BM 15:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - the 'second' vfd listing was for Pan atheism (no hyphen), a very similar article by the same author, which should have been deleted according to its votes. I redirected it to this article before its time had elapsed, and it seems that no-one bothered to delete it since its existence as a redirect was more useful. This article itself has only been listed once before, and there was no consensus. 80.255 20:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - Oh, that explains it. Thanks for the information. --BM 21:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I can't tell if it was ever actually deleted; the previous deletion votes are a little confusing. David Gerard's comment at the beginning of Talk:Pan-atheism/deletion2 suggests that vote might have been about a duplicate article. If David notices this discussion, perhaps he can clarify as well as vote. In any case, the article should still be deleted. --BM 15:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, the content is meaningful and encyclopaedic. I have seen the word used by people other than Paul Vogel. 37,100 hits on Google. As a term critical of perceived materialistic pantheistic conceptions it is a valid one, and it meaning is explained in a NPOV manner. I strongly object to any attempt to 'speedily delete' this article without due process. N.b. alternatively support redirection if outvoted, but only as a last resort to save a valid term. 80.255 20:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: confused and/or dishonest, and essentially nonexistent aside from the propogations of Paul Vogel. -Sean Curtin 00:39, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be opposed to these redirecting. If these are redirected, Panatheism should also redirect. -Sean Curtin 18:50, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- These were created as POV forks by Paul Vogel. Redirect both to Naturalistic pantheism and mention in that article - proponents of naturalistic pantheism jokingly use the term as well - David Gerard 15:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I should support redirection (along with proper incorporation of the material in the Naturalistic Pantheism article) if, as seems likely, my vote to keep is overwhelmingly opposed. 80.255 20:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete neologism, attempted POV fork. Fire Star 23:59, 13 Mar 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.