Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pantheists


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:SK. Nomination withdrawn with no other delete !votes present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 06:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

List of pantheists

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Pantheism is not a religion, it is a type of belief, found in number of religions, like it has been described if you look the main article. It has 100s of million followers, so are we going to add each of them who are popular? GEVAL needs to be checked. If still so important, it should be merged into "Pantheism", but title would be "Notable pantheists", we don't have List of monotheists, or List of polytheists, etc. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Pantheism is not a religion, it is a type of belief, found in number of religions, like it has been described if you look the main article. It has 100s of million followers, so are we going to add each of them who are popular? GEVAL needs to be checked. If still so important, it should be merged into "Pantheism", but title would be "Notable pantheists", we don't have List of monotheists, or List of polytheists, etc. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, but move- Move article to List of notable pantheists, this list is interesting and informative, yet the original concern is valid. By inserting the word notable into the article title, the original concern would be suitably addressed. Scott P. (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Much better if the list is kept inside the article Pantheism itself. This list is just 19,000 Bytes. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, and the suggested move to "notable" is fine with me. It seems to me that the page passes WP:LISTN, and that's that. We have pantheism, and there is no concern that that lacks notability, thus passing LISTN, and so the only problem would be if there was unreliability of sourcing individual persons on the list as belonging there, and that argument has not been made. The "otherstuff" arguments do not really work, and in fact we have numerous list pages about persons who were/are atheists. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyways I think I already had enough from here. Obviously the name of the article has been changed now. I withdraw from here. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Since the nominator has withdrawn and the article has been moved to a less problematic title, I think this discussion can be closed. Novusuna talk 19:07, 28 December 2013 (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.