Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltheism


 * 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 delete and create a redirect to Dystheism. - Bobet 16:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Maltheism
Neologism; Google hits are to Wikipedia-related sources or to one blog with few comments; article itself lacks references and does not concern a term used in standard intellectual history ThaddeusFrye 05:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * redirect to dystheism. This has a two-years' history, see the talkpage: the article was created in good faith and with enthusiasm by a user who I suppose is identical with the "Maltheism movement" as announced elsewhere on the net. I tried to convince them that the correct term is dystheism but they insisted that maltheism was something separate, as part of online culture or something. After all this time, there is no evidence of this, the term is a neologism of questionable notability, but I see no harm in redirecting to dystheism to accommodate users who might be looking for the term. dab (&#5839;) 07:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as noted in nomination. Alternatively, redirect as noted by Dbachmann. Jlittlet 18:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete There are no real references. The opening paragraph references a forum user's post.  As far as I can tell some people who agree with dystheism, which itself is a term made up in 1998, made up their own term to say "God is bad" instead of just "God is not wholly good".  All the Google search results on this are wikis and forum posts.  It's not a recognized philosophical term; it's definitely a neologism.  Maybe there's no harm in a redirect, but I imagine those who believe in "maltheism" could find an appropriate philosophy or theology article.  Wikipedia does not need an article on every belief system that internet users come up with, it's supposed to be encylopedic.  This article violates  wiki guidlines such as: neologisms, uncited sources, and unreliable sources. Littleman TAMU 00:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;Material is not encyclopedic. Fails Verifiability. Delete - Williamborg (Bill) 00:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dystheism, which has been re-organized and more robustly attributed, as others have suggested. Craig zimmerman


 * 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.