Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omnientheism


 * 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. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 01:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Omnientheism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Neologism made up by the article's creator. The single-digit number of Google results speaks strongly to its lack of notability. Cyber cobra (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Though the term was coined ~20 years ago, the reference in question is new. Even if the term were brand new, the newness of a term does not make it invalid or un-useful. This Wikipedia policy speaks to the reference issue:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:


 * the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
 * the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Cybercobra claims on his talk page edit to be willing to go through the BRD cycle, but instead has already reverted to ignoring any debate and revising his talk page to eliminate the conversation. It seems he gets accused of being overly bold rather often.

I suggest anyone interested in this debate read the entry and ask themselves if the concept is theologically, philosophically, and/or epistemologically useful. There are plenty of pages on Wikipedia describing ideas that have far less notability.

JahSun (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete With regard to the Self-published or questionable sources on themselves policy quoted above; this is part of WP:Verifiability, not WP:Notability. The Notability guideline specifies the need for sources that are independent of the subject in order to warrant the creation of an article. I haven't found sufficient coverage in any independent sources that would convice me this topic is notable. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per the policies and guidelines cited by nominator and User:Yunshui. There's no evidence that the theory/concept received a significant reception in reliable and independent sources, which is definitely needed to maintain any article on this project. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform presenting someone's personal ideas and opinions. There's a lot of free space on Internet where you can inform others about your theories, JahSun. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable, independent sources; no wide usage; basically a neologism; basically a private / fringe theory. Hence, no sign of notability. To put it another way, pure POV. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this is POV/OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of reliable sources. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Writer and theologian Orlando Alcántara Fernández (Cristorly) has written a book on Omnientheism, and it is quoted in numerous places on the web. Omnientheism: GOD According to Biblical Universalist Unitarianism (also available in Spanish as Omnienteísmo: DIOS Según El Unitarismo Universalista Bíblico) is a completely independent take on the concept and thus discounts the calls above of Neologism & made up as the word has been in print for many years before being written about by the principal author of the page.

The term is known enough to be featured prominently in the everything.explained.at online encyclopedia with references that can be found here http://everything.explained.at/pandeism/. I call for the opinion of an actual expert in theology, theism, and panentheism to chime in here. The opinions of a clique of mods who have no credentials or written papers in the field amounts to near worthlessness in determining the notability of this term. If any of the above users have some qualification in this (other than being wikipedia fanatics) which are not posted on your respective user pages, I ask that such references be posted here. JahSun (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, this "book" (which according to User:Cristorly was written specifically for Wikipedia and therefore could be qualified as original research) has not been published - leastways it does not appear on Neilsen Bookdata, and does not appear to even have an ISBN assigned to it.
 * Brian Cryer's Everything Explained At is a self-published website, and sources only Cristorly's essay for it's information on Omnientheism, so you've actually only provided us with one source here - which doesn't appear to exist in print. Certainly not a reliable source. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, for whatever it matters, "essay" not "book" according to this obituary. --Cyber cobra (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It is only natural that an admin who actually has studied philosophy or theology be brought in.JahSun (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, let me to inform you that (a) admin's don't have any special privileges in discussions beyond the persuasiveness of their argument (b) the whole point of the "This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions" notice above is to try and bring in relevant commenters; this being a volunteer site however, we can't force people if no one happens to respond.--Cyber cobra (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The related term OMNITHEISM turns up hundreds of results on Google, including Wiktionary, with a page here on Wikipedia no less: omnitheism. Just as we have pages for pantheism and panentheism, it makes sense to actually not only leave the omnientheism page, but expand it. Perhaps some actual theologians can help to build the page up? JahSun (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But we're talking about "omniENtheism", which in stark contrast turns up a mere handful of results, of dubious reliability. Even if we accept Cristorly as a source, the WP:GNG requires multiple (i.e. at least 1 more) independent pieces of coverage. --Cyber cobra (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't see that omnitheism is related to omnientheism, I will not try to change your mind. Students of theism know that the EN is often inserted into these words to delineate an important variation on the concept.  See pantheism vs. panentheism. JahSun (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Per my comment above, I for one don't accept Cristorly as a source, since the information is unavailable (apparently unpublished) and hence doesn't even meet WP:V. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha! Archive.org still has a copy before his site went 404. --Cyber cobra (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) That was an interesing read, thanks Cybercobra. So... published on a now-defunct personal website, by an author who does not appear to be a noted expert in the field (in spite of their userpage claims, no evidence seems to exist showing Cristory being published by reliable third-party publications) - nope, still doesn't do it for me, I'm afraid; it fails WP:SPS on every count. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 14:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it seems that Cristorly might have been a less than stellar source to bring into the discussion. I also don't feel like getting sidetracked and debating the Bias aspects we started to get into. Thus, I have removed the offending statements and will merely hope that someone with a real background in theology and panentheism shows up to weigh in. This isn't really important enough to warrant the time being spent, as I have real tangible issues to deal with ATM. JahSun (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Omnientheism article was rated to be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy by a ranking philosophy member. Granted it was given low priority for the project, but it is clearly considered worthy of some philosophical notice. Check the talk page for the article. JahSun (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Hey, I'm a strong inclusionist, but I can't find even one Google Book or Google News Archive reference to this term.  Not even one!  Its like the recently deleted Articles for deletion/Northeastern Quartersphere, wikipedia is simply not the place of new, or unverified, ideas.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note I have added a speedy delete tag. Aside from JahSun's personal opinion, this seems to be nonsense. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense? The fact it was nominated for the Philosophy project says otherwise.  The fact that another encyclopedia wanted it for their site also. It may not truly worthy of Wikipedia yet, but it is certainly not gibberish.  You have already given your opinion on this issue, why I ask, is this measly article important enough for you that you feel the need to go back and try and get rid of it even faster?  Does it offend you somehow?JahSun (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)And I've rejected it. This is not patent nonsense as is meant under the speedy deletion criterium. Oh, and Strong delete, there is no indication that this in any way suitable for inclusion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Without my offering it to them, another online encyclopedia has taken this Wikipedia article and ported to their site. On my talk page you can see that an interested user asked my permission to use the material for their site. JahSun (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete They don't need to ask your permission as Wikipedia content is licensed under Creative Commons. In fact, you couldn't have refused permission had you wished to, as by clicking 'save' you release the rights in your edit. What the situation is when something is deleted here, I don't know. User:Moonriddengirl probably would. The rights in your edits may revert to you, or they may remain licensed. Anyway, on Google (once Wikipedia is minused out of the search) there are 11 hits, one being at blogspot and apparently by the author of the article, two at gogetpapers (which contain plenty of questions but precious few answers on this topic, at least. Some of the others are 'pickup' sites - those ones that contain interesting words to get you in so that they can try to sell you things. The 'other online encyclopedia', Everything2, has (to quote our article on it) "no formal policy on subject matter", so their desire to have this is of no relevance. All in all, this doesn't give much in the way of coverage. Peridon (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Yunshui. Begoon &thinsp; talk  00:44, 6 February 2012 (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.